Chapter XXXII: Front Matter (32)

"A horde of Cassites or Kossæans swept down from the mountains
of Northern Elam under their leader, Khammuragas; Accad was
conquered, a foreign dynasty established in the land, and the
capital transferred from Agade to Babylon. Babylon now became
a city of importance for the first time; the rank assigned to
it in the mythical age was but a reflection of the position it
held after the Cassite conquest. The Cassite dynasty is
probably the Arabian dynasty of Berosos. ... A newly-found
inscription of Nabonidos makes the date [of its advent] B. C.
3750 [_foot-note_]. ... The first care of Khammuragas,
after establishing himself in Accad, was to extend his sway
over the southern kingdom of Sumer as well. ... Khammuragas
became king of the whole of Babylonia. From this time onward
the country remained a united monarchy. The Cassite dynasty
must have lasted for several centuries, and probably included
more than one line of kings. ... It was under the Cassite
dynasty that the kingdom of Assyria first took its rise,--
partly, perhaps, in consequence of the Asiatic conquests of
the Egyptian monarchs of the eighteenth dynasty. ... In B. C.
1400 the Cassite king married an Assyrian princess. Her son,
Kara-Murdas, was murdered by the party opposed to Assyrian
influence, but the usurper, Nazi-bugas, was quickly overthrown
by the Assyrians, who placed a vassal-prince on the throne.
This event may be considered the turning-point in the history
of the kingdoms of the Tigris and Euphrates; Assyria
henceforth takes the place of the worn-out monarchy of
Babylonia, and plays the chief part in the affairs of Western
Asia until the day of its final fall. In little more than a
hundred years later the Assyrians were again in Babylonia, but
this time as avowed enemies to all parties alike; Babylon was
captured by the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-Adar in B. C. 1270,
and the rule of the Cassite dynasty came to an end."

_A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2._

ALSO IN:
_G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Chaldea, chapter 8._

See, also, ASSYRIA.

BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.
The later Empire.

For more than six centuries after the conquest of B. C. 1270,
Babylonia was obscured by Assyria. During most of that long
period, the Chaldean kingdom was subject to its northern
neighbor and governed by Assyrian viceroys. There were
frequent revolts and some intervals of independence; but they
were brief, and the political life of Babylonia as a distinct
power may be said to have been suspended from 1270 until 625
B. C., when Nabopolassar, who ruled first as the viceroy of
the Assyrian monarch, threw off his yoke, took the attributes
of sovereignty to himself, and joined the Medes in
extinguishing the glory of Nineveh. "The Assyrian Empire was
now shared between Media and Babylon. Nabucudur-utser, or
Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar's eldest son, was the real
founder of the Babylonian empire. The attempt of Pharaoh Necho
to win for Egypt the inheritance of Assyria was overthrown at
the battle of Carchemish, and when Nebuchadrezzar succeeded
his father in B. C. 604, he found himself the undisputed lord
of Western Asia. Palestine was coerced in 602, and the
destruction of Jerusalem in 587 laid a way open for the
invasion of Egypt, which took place twenty years later. Tyre
also underwent a long siege of thirteen years, but it is
doubtful whether it was taken after all. Babylon was now
enriched with the spoils of foreign conquest. It owed as much
to Nebuchadrezzar as Rome owed to Augustus. The buildings and
walls with which it was adorned were worthy of the metropolis
of the world. The palace, now represented by the Kasr mound,
was built in fifteen days, and the outermost of its three
walls was seven miles in circuit. Hanging gardens were
constructed for Queen Amytis, the daughter of the Median
prince, and the great temple of Bel was roofed with cedar and
overlaid with gold. The temple of the Seven Lights, dedicated
to Nebo at Borsippa by an early king, who had raised it to a
height of forty-two cubits, was completed, and various other
temples were erected on a sumptuous scale, both in Babylon and
in the neighbouring cities, while new libraries were
established there. After a reign of forty-two years, six
months and twenty-one days, Nebuchadrezzar died (B. C. 562),
and left the crown to his son Evil-Merodach, who had a short
and inactive reign of three years and thirty-four days, when
he was murdered by his brother-in-law, Nergal-sharezer, the
Neriglissar of the Greeks. ... The chief event of his reign of
four years and four months was the construction of a new
palace. His son, who succeeded him, was a mere boy, and was
murdered after a brief reign of four months. The power now
passed from the house of Nabopolassar,--Nabu-nahid or
Nabonidos, who was raised to the throne, being of another
family. His reign lasted seventeen years and five months, and
witnessed the end of the Babylonian empire,"--which was
overthrown by Cyrus the Great (or Kyros), B. C. 539 [see
PERSIA: B. C. 543-521], and swallowed up in the Persian empire
which he founded.

_A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2._

ALSO IN:
_M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 4, chapter 15._

_G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: The Fourth
Monarchy, chapter 8._

BABYLONIAN JEWS.

See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50, and A. D. 200-400.

BABYLONIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

BABYLONIAN TALMUD, The.

See TALMUD.

"BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY" OF THE POPES.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BACCALAOS, OR BACALHAS, OR BACALHAO COUNTRY.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

BACCHIADÆ.

See CORINTH.

BACCHIC FESTIVALS.

See DIONYSIA.

BACENIS, Forest of.

See HERCYNIAN FOREST.

BACON'S REBELLION.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.

{241}

BACTRIA.

"Where the edge [of the tableland of Iran] rises to the lofty
Hindu Kush, there lies on its northern slope a favored
district in the region of the Upper Oxus. ... On the banks of
the river, which flows in a north-westerly direction, extend
broad mountain pastures, where support is found in the fresh
mountain air for numerous herds of horses and sheep, and
beneath the wooded hills are blooming valleys. On these slopes
of the Hindu Kush, the middle stage between the table-land and
the deep plain of the Caspian Sea, lay the Bactrians--the Bakhtri
of the Achaemenids, the Bakhdhi of the Avesta. ... In ancient
times the Bactrians were hardly distinguished from nomads; but
their land was extensive and produced fruits of all kinds,
with the exception of the vine. The fertility of the land
enabled the Hellenic princes to make great conquests."

_M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 6. chapter 2._

The Bactrians were among the people subjugated by Cyrus the
Great and their country formed part of the Persian Empire
until the latter was overthrown by Alexander (see MACEDONIA,
&c.: B. C. 330-323). In the division of the Macedonian
conquests, after Alexander's death, Bactria, with all the
farther east, fell to the share of Seleucus Nicator and formed
part of what came to be called the kingdom of Syria. About 256
B. C. the Bactrian province, being then governed by an
ambitious Greek satrap named Diodotus, was led by him into
revolt against the Syrian monarchy, and easily gained its
independence, with Diodotus for its king (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C.
281-224). "The authority of Diodotus was confirmed and riveted
on his subjects by an undisturbed reign of eighteen years
before a Syrian army even showed itself in his neighbourhood.
... The Bactrian Kingdom was, at any rate at its commencement,
as thoroughly Greek as that of the Seleucidæ." "From B. C. 206
to about B. C. 185 was the most flourishing period of the
Bactrian monarchy, which expanded during that space from a
small kingdom to a considerable empire"--extending over the
greater part of modern Afghanistan and across the Indus into
the Punjaub. But meantime the neighboring Parthians, who threw
off the Seleucid yoke soon after the Bactrians had done so,
were growing in power and they soon passed from rivalry to
mastery. The Bactrian kingdom was practically extinguished
about 150 B. C. by the conquests of the Parthian Mithridates
I., "although Greek monarchs of the Bactrian series continued
masters of Cabul and Western India till about B. C. 126."

_G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3-5._

BADAJOS: The Geographical Congress (1524).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

BADEN: Early Suevic population.

See SUEVI.

BADEN: A. D. 1801-1803.
Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

BADEN: A. D. 1805-1806.
Aggrandized by Napoleon.
Created a Grand Duchy.
Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806, and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

BADEN: A. D. 1813.
Abandonment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the French
Alliance.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BADEN: A. D. 1849.
Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

BADEN: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

BADEN: A. D. 1870-1871.
Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon
transformed into the German Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.

----------BADEN: End----------

BADEN, OR RASTADT, Treaty of (1714).

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BADR, OR BEDR, Battle of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

BÆCULA, Battle of.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

BÆRSÆRK.

See BERSERKER.

BÆTICA.

The ancient name of the province in Spain which afterwards
took from the Vandals the name of Andalusia.

See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25, and A. D. 428;
also TURDETANI, and VANDALS: A. D. 428.

BÆTIS, The.

The ancient name of the Guadalquiver river in Spain.

BAGACUM.

See NERVII.

BAGAUDS, Insurrection of the (A. D. 287).

The peasants of Gaul, whose condition had become very wretched
during the distractions and misgovernment of the third
century, were provoked to an insurrection, A. D. 287, which
was general and alarming. It was a rising which seems to have
been much like those that occurred in France and England
eleven centuries later. The rebel peasants were called
Bagauds,--a name which some writers derive from the Celtic
word "bagad" or "bagat," signifying "tumultuous assemblage."
They sacked and ruined several cities,--taking Autun after a
siege of seven months,--and committed many terrible
atrocities. The Emperor Maximian--colleague of
Diocletian,--succeeded, at last, in suppressing the general
outbreak, but not in extinguishing it every where. There were
traces of it surviving long afterwards.

_P. Godwin, History of France, volume 1: Ancient Gaul, book 2,
chapter 6._

ALSO IN:
_W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial
Administration, chapter 4._

See, also, DEDITITIUS.

BAGDAD, A. D. 763.
The founding of the new capital of the Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 763.

BAGDAD: A. D. 815-945.
Decline of the Caliphate.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1050.
In the hands of the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
The Fall of the Caliphate.
Destruction of the city by the Mongols.

In 1252, on the accession of Mangu Khan, grandson of Jingis
Khan, to the sovereignty of the Mongol Empire [see MONGOLS], a
great Kuriltai or council was held, at which it was decided to
send an expedition into the West, for two purposes: (1), to
exterminate the Ismaileans or Assassins, who still maintained
their power in northern Persia; (2), to reduce the Caliph of
Bagdad to submission to the Mongol supremacy. The command of
the expedition was given to Mangu's brother Khulagu, or
Houlagou, who performed his appointed tasks with thoroughness
and unmerciful resolution. In 1257 he made an end of the
Assassins, to the great relief of the whole eastern world,
Mahometan and Christian. In 1258 he passed on to Bagdad,
preceded by an embassy which summoned the Caliph to submit, to
raze the walls of Bagdad, to give up his vain pretensions to
the sovereignty of the Moslem world, and to acknowledge the
Great Khan for his lord. The feeble caliph and his treacherous
and incapable ministers neither submitted nor made vigorous
preparations for defence. As a consequence, Bagdad was taken
after a siege which only excited the ferocity of the Mongols.
They fired the city and slaughtered its people, excepting some
Christians, who are said to have been spared through the
influence of one of Khulagu's wives, who was a Nestorian. The
sack of Bagdad lasted seven days. The number of the dead, we
are told by Raschid, was 800,000. The caliph, Mostassem, with
all his family, was put to death.

_H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols,
volume 1, pages 193-201._

----------BAGDAD: End----------

[Image] I. Asia Minor And The Balkan Peninsula Near The Close Of The Twelfth Century.

Byzantine Empire. Selj. Turks. Servia. Bulgaria. Cilician Armenia. Venetian Possessions. States Under Latin Rule. County Palatinate Of Cephalonia.

II ASIA MINOR AND THE BALKAN PENINSULA IN 1265 (SHOWING RESTORED BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND SURROUNDING STATES)

III ASIA MINOR.

IV TURKISH EMPIRE.

----------End----------

[Image: ASIA MINOR AND BALKAN PENINSUAL.] [Image: TURKISH EMPIRE.]

{242}

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258. (Continued)

For a considerable period before this final catastrophe, in
the decline of the Seljuk Empire, the Caliphate at Bagdad had
become once more "an independent temporal state, though,
instead of ruling in the three quarters of the globe, the
caliphs ruled only over the province of Irak Arabi. Their
position was not unlike that of the Popes in recent times,
whom they also resembled in assuming a new name, of a pious
character, at their inauguration. Both the Christian and the
Moslem pontiff was the real temporal sovereign of a small
state; each claimed to be spiritual sovereign over the whole
of the Faithful; each was recognized as such by a large body,
but rejected by others. But in truth the spiritual recognition
of the Abbaside caliphs was more nearly universal in their
last age than it had ever been before." With the fall of
Bagdad fell the caliphate as a temporal sovereignty; but it
survived, or was resurrected, in its spiritual functions, to
become merged, a little later, in the supremacy of the sultan
of the Ottoman Turks. "A certain Ahmed, a real or pretended
Abbasside, fled [from Bagdad] to Egypt, where he was
proclaimed caliph by the title of Al Mostanser Billah, under
the protection of the then Sultan Bibars. He and his
successors were deemed, in spiritual things, Commanders of the
Faithful, and they were found to be a convenient instrument
both by the Mameluke sultans and by other Mahometan princes.
From one of them, Bajazet the Thunderbolt received the title
of Sultan; from another, Selim the Inflexible procured the
cession of his claims, and obtained the right to deem himself
the shadow of God upon earth. Since then, the Ottoman Padishah
has been held to inherit the rights of Omar and of Haroun,
rights which if strictly pressed, might be terrible alike to
enemies, neutrals, and allies."

_E. A. Freeman, History and Conquest of the Saracens,
lecture 4._

BAGDAD: A. D. 1393.
Timour's pyramid of heads.

See TIMOUR.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1623-1638.
Taken by the Persians and retaken by the Turks.
Fearful slaughter of the inhabitants.

See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.

----------BAGDAD: End----------

BAGISTANA.

See BEHISTUN, ROCK OF.

BAGLIONI, The.

"The Baglioni first came into notice during the wars they
carried on with the Oddi of Perugia in the 14th and 15th
centuries. This was one of those duels to the death, like that
of the Visconti with the Torrensi of Milan, on which the fate
of so many Italian cities of the middle ages hung. The nobles
fought; the townsfolk assisted like a Greek chorus, sharing
the passions of the actors, but contributing little to the
catastrophe. The piazza was the theatre on which the tragedy
was played. In this contest the Baglioni proved the stronger,
and began to sway the state of Perugia after the irregular
fashion of Italian despots. They had no legal right over the
city, no hereditary magistracy, no title of princely
authority. The Church was reckoned the supreme administrator
of the Perugian commonwealth. But in reality no man could set
foot on the Umbrian plain without permission from the
Baglioni. They elected the officers of state. The lives and
goods of the citizens were at their discretion. When a Papal
legate showed his face, they made the town too hot to hold
him. ... It was in vain that from time to time the people rose
against them, massacring Pandolfo Baglioni on the public
square in 1393, and joining with Ridolfo and Braccio of the
dominant house to assassinate another Pandolfo with his son
Niccolo in 1460. The more they were cut down, the more they
flourished. The wealth they derived from their lordships in
the duchy of Spoleto and the Umbrian hill-cities, and the
treasures they accumulated in the service of the Italian
republics, made them omnipotent in their native town. ... From
father to son they were warriors, and we have records of few
Italian houses, except perhaps the Malatesti of Rimini, who
equalled them in hardihood and fierceness. Especially were
they noted for the remorseless vendette which they carried on
among themselves, cousin tracking cousin to death with the
ferocity and and craft of sleuth-hounds. Had they restrained
these fratricidal passions, they might, perhaps, by following
some common policy, like that of the Medici in Florence or the
Bentivogli in Bologna, have successfully resisted the Papal
authority, and secured dynastic sovereignty. It is not until
1495 that the history of the Baglioni becomes dramatic,
possibly because till then they lacked the pen of Matarazzo.
But from this year forward to their final extinction, every
detail of their doings has a picturesque and awful interest.
Domestic furies, like the revel descried by Cassandra above
the palace of Mycenae, seem to take possession of the fated
house; and the doom which has fallen on them is worked out
with pitiless exactitude to the last generation."

_J. A. Symonds, Sketches in Italy and Greece,
pages 70-72._

BAGRATIDAE, The.

See ARMENIA: 12th-14th CENTURIES.

BAHAMA ISLANDS: A. D. 1492.
Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

BAHRITE SULTANS.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.

BAIÆ.

Baiæ, in Campania, opposite Puteoli on a small bay near
Naples, was the favorite watering place of the ancient Romans.
"As soon as the reviving heats of April gave token of
advancing summer, the noble and the rich hurried from Rome to
this choice retreat; and here, till the raging dogstar forbade
the toils even of amusement, they disported themselves on
shore or on sea, in the thick groves or on the placid lakes,
in litters and chariots, in gilded boats with painted sails,
lulled by day and night with the sweetest symphonies of song
and music, or gazing indolently on the wanton measures of male
and female dancers. The bath, elsewhere their relaxation, was
here the business of the day; ... they turned the pools of
Avernus and Lucrinus into tanks for swimming; and in these
pleasant waters both sexes met familiarly together, and
conversed amidst the roses sprinkled lavishly on their
surface."

_C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 40._

BAINBRIDGE, Commodore William, in the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

{243}

BAIREUTH, Creation of the Principality of.

See GERMANY: THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

----------BAIREUTH: End----------

BAJAZET I.--Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1389-1402.

Bajazet II., A. D. 1481-1512.

BAKAIRI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

BAKER, Colonel Edward D., Killed at Ball's Bluff.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

BAKSAR, OR BAXAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BALACLAVA, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

BALANCE OF POWER.

In European diplomacy, a phrase signifying the policy which
aimed at keeping an approximate equilibrium of power among the
greater nations.

_T. J. Lawrence, International Law, page 126._

BALBINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 238.

BALBOA'S DISCOVERY OF THE PACIFIC.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.

BALCHITAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

BALDWIN OF FLANDERS, The Crusade of.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

Baldwin I., Latin Emperor at Constantinople
(Romania), A. D. 1204-1205.

Baldwin II., A. D. 1237-1261.

BALEARIC ISLANDS:
Origin of the Name.

"The name 'Baleares' was derived by the Greeks from 'ballein,'
to throw; but the art was taught them by the Phœnicians, and
the name is no doubt Phœnician."

_J. Kenrick, Phœnicia, chapter 4._

For the chief incidents in the history of these islands,

See MINORCA and MAJORCA.

BALIA OF FLORENCE, The.

The chief instrument employed by the Medici to establish their
power in Florence was "the pernicious system of the Parlamento
and Balia, by means of which the people, assembled from time
to time in the public square, and intimidated by the reigning
faction, entrusted full powers to a select committee nominated
in private by the chiefs of the great house. ... Segni says:
'The Parlamento is a meeting of the Florentine people on the
Piazza of the Signory. When the Signory has taken its place to
address the meeting, the piazza is guarded by armed men, and
then the people are asked whether they wish to give absolute
power (Balia) and authority to the citizens named, for their
good. When the answer, yes, prompted partly by inclination and
partly by compulsion, is returned, the Signory immediately
retires into the palace. This is all that is meant by this
parlamento, which thus gives away the full power of effecting
a change in the state."

_J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
page 164, and foot-note._

See, also, FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and 1458-1469.

----------BALIA OF FLORENCE: End----------

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BALKAN: Ancient History.

The States of southeastern Europe, lately emancipated, for the
most part, from the rule of the Turks, are so associated by a
common history, although remarkably diverse in race, that it
seems expedient to bring them for discussion together. They
occupy mainly the regions known in Roman times as MOESIA,
DACIA and ILLYRICUM, to which names the reader is referred for
some account of the scanty incidents of their early history.

See, also, AVARS.

----------BALKAN: End----------

{244}

[Image: Danubian And Balkan States]

Danubian And Balkan States

Showing Changes During The Present Century

The political condition in 1815 is shown by ROMAN LETTERS and this style of boundary:

All subsequent change, are shown by ITALIC LETTERS and this style of boundary:

The Bulgarian boundary according to the Treaty of San Stefano 1878 is shown thus:

----------Danubian And Balkan States: End----------

BALKAN:
Races existing.

"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._

"Whether they were of Slavic origin or of Gaelic or Welsh
origin, whether they were the aboriginal inhabitants of the
country who had come under the influence of the elder Rome,
and had acquired so many Latin words as to overlay their
language and to retain little more than the grammatical forms
and mould of their own language, or whether they were the
descendants of the Latin colonists of Dacia [see DACIA:
TRAJAN'S CONQUEST] with a large mixture of other peoples, are
all questions which have been much controverted. It is
remarkable that while no people living on the south of the
Balkans appear to be mentioned as Wallachs until the tenth
century, when Anna Comnena mentions a village called Ezeban,
near Mount Kissavo, occupied by them, almost suddenly we hear
of them as a great nation to the south of the Balkans. They
spoke a language which differed little from Latin. Thessaly,
during the twelfth century is usually called Great Wallachia.
... Besides the Wallachs in Thessaly, whose descendants are
now called Kutzo-Wallachs, there were the Wallachs in Dacia,
the ancestors of the present Roumanians, and Mavro-Wallachs in
Dalmatia. Indeed, according to the Hungarian and Byzantine
writers, there were during the twelfth century a series of
Wallachian peoples, extending from the Theiss to the Dniester.
... The word Wallach is used by the Byzantine writers as
equivalent to shepherd, and it may be that the common use of a
dialect of Latin by all the Wallachs is the only bond of union
among the peoples bearing that name. They were all
occasionally spoken of by the Byzantine writers as descendants
of the Romans."

_E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 3._

{248}

"The classical type of feature, so often met with among
Roumanian peasants, pleads strongly for the theory of Roman
extraction, and if just now I compared the Saxon peasants to
Noah's ark figures rudely carved out of the coarsest wood, the
Roumanians as often remind me of a type of face chiefly to be
seen on cameo ornaments, or ancient signet rings. Take at
random a score of individuals from any Roumanian village, and,
like a handful of antique gems which have been strewn
broadcast over the land, you will there surely find a good
choice of classical profiles worthy to be immortalized on
agate, onyx, or jasper. An air of plaintive melancholy
generally characterizes the Roumanian peasant: it is the
melancholy of a long-subjected and oppressed race. ... Perhaps
no other race possesses in such marked degree the blind and
immovable sense of nationality which characterizes the
Roumanians. They hardly ever mingle with the surrounding
races, far less adopt manners and customs foreign to their
own. This singular tenacity of the Roumanians to their own
dress, manners and customs is probably due to the influence of
their religion [the Greek church], which teaches that any
divergence from their own established rules is sinful."

_E. Gérard, Transylvanian Peoples
(Contemporary Review, March, 1887)._

BALKAN: A. D. 1341-1356 (Servia).
The Empire of Stephan Dushan.

"In 1341, when John Cantacuzenus assumed the purple [at
Constantinople], important prospects were opened to the
Servians. Cantacuzenus ... went up the mountains and prevailed
upon Stephan Dushan, the powerful king of the Servians, whom
he found in a country palace at Pristina, to join his cause."
As the result of this connection, and by favor of the
opportunities which the civil war and general decline in the
Greek Empire afforded him, Stephan Dushan extended his
dominions over Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, and a part of
Thrace. "The Shkypetares in Albania followed his standard;
Arta and Joannina were in his possession. From these points
his Voivodes [Palatines], whose districts may easily be
traced, spread themselves over the whole of the Roumelian
territory on the Vardar and the Marizza, as far as Bulgaria,
which he also regarded as a province of his kingdom. Being in
the possession of so extensive a dominion, he now ventured to
assume a title which was still in dispute between the Eastern
and Western Empires, and could not rightly be claimed by
either. As a Servian Krale, he could neither ask nor expect
the obedience of the Greeks: therefore he called himself
Emperor of the Roumelians--the Macedonian Christ-loving
Czar--and began to wear the tiara. ... Stephan Dushan died
[Dec. 2, 1356] before he had completed the Empire of which he
had laid the foundation, and ere he had strengthened his power
by the bulwark of national institutions."

_L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 1-2._

ALSO IN: _M'me E. L. Mijatovich, Kossovo, Int._

BALKAN: A. D. 1389 (Bulgaria).
Conquest by the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

BALKAN: 14th Century (Bulgaria).
Subjection to Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

BALKAN: 14th-18th Centuries (Roumania, or Wallachia, and Moldavia).
Four Centuries of Conflict with Hungarians and Turks.