Part 80

"In no part of Western Europe do we find districts inhabited by men differing in speech and national feeling, lying in distinct patches here and there over a large country. A district like one of our larger counties in which one parish, perhaps one hundred, spoke Welsh, another Latin, another English, another Danish, another Old French, another the tongue of more modern settlers, Flemings, Huguenots or Palatines, is something which we find hard to conceive, and which, as applied to our own land or to any other Western land, sounds absurd on the face of it. When we pass into South-eastern Europe, this state of things, the very idea of which seems absurd in the West, is found to be perfectly real. All the races which we find dwelling there at the beginning of recorded history, together with several races which have come in since, all remain, not as mere fragments or survivals, but as nations, each with its national language and national feelings, and each having its greater or less share of practical importance in the politics of the present moment. Setting aside races which have simply passed through the country without occupying it, we may say that all the races which have ever settled in the country are there still as distinct races. And, though each race has its own particular region where it forms the whole people or the great majority of the people, still there are large districts where different races really live side by side in the very way which seems so absurd when we try to conceive it in any Western country. We cannot conceive a Welsh, an English, and a Norman village side by side; but a Greek, a Bulgarian, and a Turkish village side by side is a thing which may be seen in many parts of Thrace. The oldest races in those lands, those which answer to Basques and Bretons in Western Europe, hold quite another position from that of Basques and Bretons in Western Europe. They form three living and vigorous nations, Greek, Albanian, and Rouman. They stand as nations alongside of the Slaves who came in later, and who answer roughly to the Teutons in the West, while all alike are under the rule of the Turk, who has nothing answering to him in the West. … When the Romans conquered the South-eastern lands, they found there three great races, the Greek, the Illyrian, and the Thracian. Those three races are all there still. The Greeks speak for themselves. The Illyrians are represented by the modern Albanians. The Thracians are represented, there seems every reason to believe, by the modern Roumans. Now had the whole of the South-eastern lands been inhabited by Illyrians and Thracians, those lands would doubtless have become as thoroughly Roman as the Western lands became. … But the position of the Greek nation, its long history and its high civilization, hindered this. {245} The Greeks could not become Romans in any but the most purely political sense. Like other subjects of the Roman Empire, they gradually took the Roman name; but they kept their own language, literature, and civilization. In short we may say that the Roman Empire in the East became Greek, and that the Greek nation became Roman. The Eastern Empire and the Greek-speaking lands became nearly coextensive. Greek became the one language of the Eastern Roman Empire, while those that spoke it still called themselves Romans. Till quite lately, that is till the modern ideas of nationality began to spread, the Greek-speaking subjects of the Turk called themselves by no name but that of Romans. … While the Greeks thus took the Roman name without adopting the Latin language, another people in the Eastern peninsula adopted both name and language, exactly as the nations of the West did. If, as there is good reason to believe, the modern Roumans represent the old Thracians, that nation came under the general law, exactly like the Western nations. The Thracians became thoroughly Roman in speech, as they have ever since kept the Roman name. They form in fact one of the Romance nations, just as much as the people of Gaul or Spain. … In short, the existence of a highly civilized people like the Greeks hindered in every way the influence of Rome from being so thorough in the East as it was in the West. The Greek nation lived on, and alongside of itself, it preserved the other two ancient nations of the peninsula. Thus all three have lived on to the present as distinct nations. Two of them, the Greeks and the Illyrians, still keep their own languages, while the third, the old Thracians, speak a Romance language and call themselves Roumans. … The Slavonic nations hold in the East a place answering to that which is held by the Teutonic nations in the West. … But though the Slaves in the East thus answer in many ways to the Teutons in the West, their position with regard to the Eastern Empire was not quite the same as that of the Teutons towards the Western Empire. … They learned much from the half Roman, half Greek power with which they had to do; but they did not themselves become either Greek or Roman, in the way in which the Teutonic conquerors in the Western Empire became Roman. … Thus, while in the West everything except a few survivals of earlier nations, is either Roman or Teutonic, in the East, Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians or Roumans, and Slaves, all stood side by side as distinct nations when the next set of invaders came, and they remain as distinct nations still. … There came among them, in the form of the Ottoman Turk, a people with whom union was not only hard but impossible, a people who were kept distinct, not by special circumstances, but by the inherent nature of the case. Had the Turk been other than what he really was, he might simply have become a new nation alongside of the other South-eastern nations. Being what he was the Turk could not do this. … The original Turks did not belong to the Aryan branch of mankind, and their original speech is not an Aryan speech. The Turks and their speech belong to altogether another class of nations and languages. … Long before the Turks came into Europe, the Magyars or Hungarians had come; and, before the Magyars came, the Bulgarians had come. Both the Magyars and the Bulgarians were in their origin Turanian nations, nations as foreign to the Aryan people of Europe as the Ottoman Turks themselves. But their history shows that a Turanian nation settling in Europe may either be assimilated with an existing European nation or may sit down as an European nation alongside of others. The Bulgarians have done one of these things; the Magyars have done the other; the Ottoman Turks have done neither. So much has been heard lately of the Bulgarians as being in our times the special victims of the Turk that some people may find it strange to hear who the original Bulgarians were. They were a people more or less nearly akin to the Turks, and they came into Europe as barbarian conquerors who were as much dreaded by the nations of South-eastern Europe as the Turks themselves were afterwards. The old Bulgarians were a Turanian people, who settled in a large part of the South-eastern peninsula, in lands which had been already occupied by Slaves. They came in as barbarian conquerors; but, exactly as happened to so many conquerors in Western Europe, they were presently assimilated by their Slavonic subjects and neighbours. They learned the Slavonic speech; they gradually lost all traces of their foreign origin. Those whom we now call Bulgarians are a Slavonic people speaking a Slavonic tongue, and they have nothing Turanian about them except the name which they borrowed from their Turanian masters. … The Bulgarians entered the Empire in the seventh century, and embraced Christianity in the ninth. They rose to great power in the South-eastern lands, and played a great part in their history. But all their later history, from a comparatively short time after the first Bulgarian conquest, has been that of a Slavonic and not that of a Turanian people. The history of the Bulgarians therefore shows that it is quite possible, if circumstances are favourable, for a Turanian people to settle among the Aryans of Europe and to be thoroughly assimilated by the Aryan nation among whom they settled."

_E. A. Freeman, The Ottoman Power in Europe, chapter 2._

ALSO IN: _R. G. Latham, The Nationalities of Europe._

BALKAN: 7th Century. (Servia, Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia and Montenegro.) The Slavonic settlement.

"No country on the face of our unfortunate planet has been oftener ravaged, no land so often soaked with the blood of its inhabitants. At the dawn of history Bosnia formed part of Illyria. It was said to have been already peopled by Slav tribes. Rome conquered all this region as far as the Danube, and annexed it to Dalmatia. Two provinces were formed, 'Dalmatia maritima,' and 'Dalmatia interna,' or 'Illyris barbara.' Order reigned, and as the interior communicated with the coast, the whole country flourished. Important ports grew upon the littoral. … At the fall of the Empire came the Goths, then the Avars, who, for two centuries, burned and massacred, and turned the whole country into a desert. … In 630 the Croats began to occupy the present Croatia, Slavonia, and the north of Bosnia, and in 640 the Servians, of the same race and language, exterminated the Avars and peopled Servia, Southern Bosnia, Montenegro and Dalmatia. The ethnic situation which exists to-day dates from this epoch."

_E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 3._

{246}

"Heraclius [who occupied the throne of the Eastern Empire at Constantinople from 610 to 642] appears to have formed the plan of establishing a permanent barrier in Europe against the encroachments of the Avars and Sclavonians. … To accomplish this object, Heraclius induced the Serbs, or Western Sclavonians, who occupied the country about the Carpathian mountains, and who had successfully opposed the extension of the Avar empire in that direction, to abandon their ancient seats, and move down to the South into the provinces between the Adriatic and the Danube. The Roman and Greek population of these provinces had been driven towards the seacoast by the continual incursions of the northern tribes, and the desolate plains of the interior had been occupied by a few Sclavonian subjects and vassals of the Avars. The most important of the western Sclavonian tribes who moved southward at the invitation of Heraclius were the Servians and Croatians, who settled in the countries still peopled by their descendants. Their original settlements were formed in consequence of friendly arrangements, and, doubtless, under the sanction of an express treaty; for the Sclavonian people of Illyria and Dalmatia long regarded themselves as bound to pay a certain degree of territorial allegiance to the Eastern Empire. … These colonies, unlike the earlier invaders of the Empire, were composed of agricultural communities. … Unlike the military races of Goths, Huns, and Avars, who had preceded them, the Servian nations increased and flourished in the lands which they had colonized; and by the absorption of every relic of the ancient population, they formed political communities and independent states, which offered a firm barrier to the Avars and other hostile nations. … The states which they constituted were of considerable weight in the history of Europe; and the kingdoms or bannats of Croatia, Servia, Bosnia, Rascia and Dalmatia, occupied for some centuries a political position very similar to that now held by the secondary monarchical states of the present day."

_G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 6._

See, also, AVARS: THE BREAKING OF THEIR DOMINION; and SLAVONIC NATIONS: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

BALKAN: 7th-8th Centuries (Bulgaria). Vassalage to the Khazars.

See KHAZARS.

BALKAN: 9th Century (Servia). Rise of the Kingdom.

"At the period alluded to [the latter part of the ninth century] the Servians did not, like the rest of the Sclavonians, constitute a distinct state, but acknowledged the supremacy of the Eastern Roman Emperor: in fact the country they inhabited had, from ancient times, formed part of the Roman territory; and it still remained part of the Eastern Empire when the Western Empire was re-established, at the time of Charlemagne. The Servians, at the same period, embraced the Christian faith; but in doing so they did not subject themselves entirely, either to the empire or church of the Greeks. …. The Emperor … permitted the Servians to be ruled by native chiefs, solely of their own election, who preserved a patriarchal form of government. … In the eleventh century, the Greeks, despite of the stipulations they had entered into, attempted to take Servia under their immediate control, and to subject it to their financial system." The attempt met with a defeat which was decisive. "Not only did it put a speedy termination to the encroachment of the Court of Constantinople in imposing a direct government, but it also firmly established the princely power of the Grand Shupanes; whose existence depended on the preservation of the national independence. … Pope Gregory VII. was the first who saluted a Grand Shupane as King."

_L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 1._

BALKAN: 9th-16th Centuries (Bosnia, Servia, Croatia, Dalmatia.) Conversion to Christianity. The Bogomiles. Hungarian crusades. Turkish conquest.

After the Slavonic settlement of Servia, Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia, for a time "the sovereignty of Byzantium was acknowledged. But the conversion of these tribes, of identical race, to two different Christian rites, created an antagonism which still exists. The Croats were converted first by missionaries from Rome; they thus adopted Latin letters and Latin ritual; the Servians, on the contrary, and consequently part of the inhabitants of Bosnia, were brought to Christianity by Cyril and Methodius, who, coming from Thessalonica, brought the characters and rites of the Eastern Church. About 860 Cyril translated the Bible into Slav, inventing an alphabet which bears his name, and which is still in use. … In 874 Budimir, the first Christian King of Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia, called a diet upon the plain of Dalminium, where he tried to establish a regular organization. It was about this time that the name Bosnia appeared for the first time. It is said to be derived from a Slav tribe coming originally from Thrace. In 905 Brisimir, King of Servia, annexed Croatia and Bosnia; but this union did not last long. The sovereignty of Byzantium ceased in these parts after the year 1000. It was gained by Ladislaus, King of Hungary, about 1091. In 1103 Coloman, King of Hungary, added the titles of 'Rex Ramæ' (Herzegovina), then of 'Rex Bosniæ.' Since then Bosnia has always been a dependence of the crown of Saint Stephen. … About this time some Albigenses came to Bosnia. who converted to their beliefs a large number of the people who were called Catare, in German Patarener. In Bosnia they received and adopted the name of Bogomile, which means 'loving God.' Nothing is more tragic than the history of this heresy. … They [the Bogomiles] became in Bosnia a chief factor, both of its history and its present situation. … The Hungarian Kings, in obedience to the Pope, ceaselessly endeavoured to extirpate them, and their frequent wars of extermination provoked the hatred of the Bosnians. … In 1238 the first great crusade was organized by Bela IV. of Hungary, in obedience to Pope Gregory VII. The whole country was devastated, and the Bogomiles nearly all massacred, except a number who escaped to the forests and mountains. In 1245 the Hungarian Bishop of Kalocsa himself led a second crusade. In 1280 a third crusade was undertaken by Ladislaus IV., King of Hungary, in order to regain the Pope's favour. … About the year 1300 Paul of Brebir, 'Banus Croatorum et Bosniæ dominus,' finally added Herzegovina to Bosnia. Under the Ban Stephen IV., the Emperor of Servia, the great Dushan, occupied Bosnia, but it soon regained its independence (1355), and under Stephen Tvartko, who took the title of king, the country enjoyed a last period of peace and prosperity. … {247} Before his death the Turks appeared on the frontiers. At the memorable and decisive battle of Kossovo [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389], which gave them Servia, 30,000 Bosnians were engaged, and, though retreating stopped the conqueror. Under Tvartko II., the second king, who was a Bogomile, Bosnia enjoyed some years' peace (1326-1443). Then followed [see TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451] a bloody interlude of civil war," which invited the Turks and prepared the way for them. "Mohammed II., who had just taken Constantinople (1453), advanced with a formidable army of 150,000 men, which nothing could resist. The country was laid waste: 30,000 young men were circumcised and enrolled amongst the janissaries; 200,000 prisoners were made slaves; the towns which resisted were burned; the churches turned into mosques, and the land confiscated by the conquerors (1463). … A period of struggle lasted from 1463 till the definite conquest in 1527 [see TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. … When the battle of Mohacz (August 29, 1526) gave Hungary to the Ottomans [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526] Jaitche, the last rampart of Bosnia, whose defence had inspired acts of legendary courage, fell in its turn in 1527. A strange circumstance facilitated the Mussulman conquest. To save their wealth, the greater number of magnates, and almost all the Bogomiles, who were exasperated by the cruel persecutions directed against them, went over to Islamism. From that time they became the most ardent followers of Mohammedanism, whilst keeping the language and names of their ancestors. They fought everywhere in the forefront of the battles which gained Hungary for the Turks." Within the present century the Bosnian Mussulmans have risen in arms "against all the reforms that Europe, in the name of modern principles, wrested from the Porte."

_E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 3._

ALSO IN: _L. von Ranke, History of Servia, &c._

BALKAN: 10th-11th Centuries (Bulgaria). The First Bulgarian Kingdom and its overthrow by Basil II.

"The glory of the Bulgarians was confined to a narrow scope both of time and place. In the 9th and 10th centuries they reigned to the south of the Danube, but the more powerful nations that had followed their emigration repelled all return to the north and all progress to the west. … In the beginning of the 11th century, the Second Basil [Byzantine or Greek Emperor, A. D. 976-1025] who was born in the purple, deserved the appellation of conqueror of the Bulgarians [subdued by his predecessor, John Zimisces, but still rebellious]. His avarice was in some measure gratified by a treasure of 400,000 pounds sterling (10,000 pounds' weight of gold) which he found in the palace of Lychnidus. His cruelty inflicted a cool and exquisite vengeance on 15,000 captives who had been guilty of the defence of their country. They were deprived of sight, but to one of each hundred a single eye was left, that he might conduct his blind century to the presence of their king. Their king is said to have expired of grief and horror; the nation was awed by this terrible example; the Bulgarians were swept away from their settlements, and circumscribed within a narrow province; the surviving chiefs bequeathed to their children the advice of patience and the duty of revenge."

_E. Gibbon, Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 55. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALSO IN: _G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1007, book 2, chapter 2._

See, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043, and ACHRIDA, THE KINGDOM OF.

BALKAN: A. D. 1096 (Bulgaria). Hostilities with the First Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

BALKAN: 12th Century (Bulgaria). The Second Bulgarian or Wallachian Kingdom.

"The reign of Isaac II. [Byzantine or Greek Emperor, A. D. 1185-1195] is filled with a series of revolts, caused by his incapable administration and financial rapacity. The most important of these was the great rebellion of the Vallachian and Bulgarian population which occupied the country between Mount Hæmus and the Danube. The immense population of this extensive country now separated itself finally from the government of the Eastern Empire, and its political destinies ceased to be united with those of the Greeks. A new European monarchy, called the Vallachian, or Second Bulgarian kingdom, was formed, which for some time acted an important part in the affairs of the Byzantine Empire, and contributed powerfully to the depression of the Greek race. The sudden importance assumed by the Vallachian population in this revolution, and the great extent of country then occupied by a people who had previously acted no prominent part in the political events of the East, render it necessary to give some account of their previous history. Four different countries are spoken of under the name of Vallachia by the Byzantine writers: Great Vallachia, which was the country round the plain of Thessaly, particularly the southern and south-western part. White Vallachia, or the modern Bulgaria, which formed the Vallachio-Bulgarian kingdom that revolted from Isaac II.; Black Vallachia, Mavro-Vallachia, or Karabogdon, which is Moldavia; and Hungarovallachia, or the Vallachia of the present day, comprising a part of Transylvania. … The question remains undecided whether these Vallachians are the lineal descendants of the Thracian race, who, Strabo tells us, extended as far south as Thessaly, and as far north as to the borders of Pannonia; for of the Thracian language we know nothing."

_G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 1._