Chapter XXXIII: Front Matter (33)

"The Wallacho-Bulgarian monarchy, whatever may have been its
limits, was annihilated by a horde of Tartars about A. D.
1250. The same race committed great havoc in Hungary,
conquered the Kumani, overran Moldavia, Transylvania, &c., and
held their ground there until about the middle of the 14th
century, when they were driven northward by the Hungarian,
Saxon, and other settlers in Transylvania; and with their exit
we have done with the barbarians. ... Until recently the
historians of Roumania have had little to guide them
concerning the events of the period beyond traditions which,
though very interesting, are now gradually giving place to
recorded and authenticated facts. .... It is admitted that the
plains and slopes of the Carpathians were inhabited by
communities ruled over by chieftains of varying power and
influence. Some were banates, as that of Craiova, which long
remained a semi-independent State; then there were petty
voivodes or princes . ... and besides these there were
Khanates, ... some of which were petty principalities, whilst
others were merely the governorships of villages or groups of
them. ... Mircea, one of the heroes of Roumanian history, not
only secured the independent sovereignty, and called himself
Voivode of Wallachia 'by the grace of God,' but in 1389 he
formed an alliance with Poland, and assumed other titles by
the right of conquest. This alliance ... had for its objects
the extension of his dominions, as well as protection against
Hungary on the one hand, and the Ottoman power on the other;
for the ... Turkish armies had overrun Bulgaria, and about the
year 1391 they first made their appearance north of the
Danube. At first the bravery of Mircea was successful in
stemming the tide of invasion;" but after a year or two,
"finding himself between two powerful enemies, the King of
Hungary and the Sultan, Mircea elected to form an alliance
with the latter, and concluded a treaty with him at Nicopolis
(1393), known as the First Capitulation, by which Wallachia
retained its autonomy, but agreed to pay an annual tribute and
to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan. ... According to
several historians Mircea did not adhere to it long, for he is
said to have been in command of a contingent in the army of
the crusaders, and to have been present at the battle of
Nicopolis (1396), in which the flower of the French nobility
fell, and, when he found their cause to be hopeless, once more
to have deserted them and joined the victorious arms of
Bajazet. Of the continued wars and dissensions in Wallachia
during the reign of Mircea it is unnecessary to speak. He
ruled with varying fortunes until 1418 A. D." A Second
Capitulation was concluded, at Adrianople, with the Turks, in
1460, by a later Wallachian voivode, named Vlad.
{249}
It increased the tribute to the Porte, but made no other
important change in the terms of suzerainty. Meantime, in the
neighbouring Moldavian principality, events were beginning to
shape themselves into some historical distinctness. "For a
century after the foundation of Moldavia, or, as it was at
first called, Bogdania, by Bogdan Dragosch [a legendary hero],
the history of the country is shrouded in darkness. Kings or
princes are named, one or more of whom were Lithuanians. ...
At length a prince more powerful than the rest ascended the
throne. ... This was Stephen, sometimes called the 'Great' or
'Good.' ... He came to the throne about 1456 or 1458, and
reigned until 1504, and his whole life was spent in wars
against Transylvania, Wallachia, ... the Turks, and Tartars.
... In 1475 he was at war with the Turks, whom he defeated on
the river Birlad. ... In that year also Stephen ... completely
overran Wallachia. Having reduced it to submission, he placed
a native boyard on the throne as his viceroy, who showed his
gratitude to Stephen by rebelling and liberating the country
from his rule; but he was in his turn murdered by his
Wallachian subjects. In 1476 Stephen sustained a terrible
defeat at the hands of the Ottomans at Valea Alba (the White
Valley), but eight years afterwards, allied with the Poles, he
again encountered [and defeated] this terrible enemy. ...
After the battle of Mohacs [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526] the
Turks began to encroach more openly upon Roumanian
(Moldo-Wallachian) territory. They occupied and fortified
Braila, Giurgevo, and Galatz; interfered in the election of
the princes ... adding to their own influence, and rendering
the princes more and more subservient to their will. This
state of things lasted until the end of the 16th century, when
another hero, Michael the Brave of Wallachia, restored
tranquility and independence to the Principalities, and raised
them for a season in the esteem of surrounding nations."
Michael, who mounted the throne in 1593, formed an alliance
with the Prince of Siebenbürgen (Transylvania) and the voivode
of Moldavia, against the Turks. He began his warfare,
November, 1591, by a wholesale massacre of the Turks in
Bucharest and Jassy. He then took Giurgevo by storm and
defeated the Ottoman forces in a battle at Rustchuk. In 1595,
Giurgevo was the scene of two bloody battles, in both of which
Michael came off victor, with famous laurels. The Turks were
effectually driven from the country. The ambition of the
victorious Michael was now excited, and he invaded
Transylvania (1599) desiring to add it to his dominions. In a
battle "which is called by some the battle of Schellenberg,
and by others of Hermanstadt," he defeated the reigning
prince, Cardinal Andreas, and Transylvania was at his feet. He
subdued Moldavia with equal ease, and the whole of ancient
Dacia became subject to his rule. The Emperor Rudolph, as
suzerain of Transylvania, recognized his authority. But his
reign was brief. Before the close of the year 1600 a rising
occurred in Transylvania, and Michael was defeated in a battle
fought at Miriszlo. He escaped to the mountains and became a
fugitive for some months, while even his Wallachian throne was
occupied by a brother of the Moldavian voivode. At length he
made terms with the Emperor Rudolph, whose authority had been
slighted by the Transylvanian insurgents, and procured men and
money with which he returned in force, crushed his opponents
at Goroszlo, and reigned again as viceroy. But he quarreled
soon with the commander of the imperial troops, General Basta,
and the latter caused him to be assassinated, some time in
August, 1601. ... The History of Moldo-Wallachia during the
17th century ... possesses little interest for English
readers." At the end of the 17th century "another great Power
[Russia] was drawing nearer and nearer to Roumania, which was
eventually to exercise a grave influence upon her destiny. ...
In the beginning of the 18th century there ruled two voivodes,
Constantine Brancovano, in Wallachia, and Demetrius Cantemir
in Moldavia, both of whom had been appointed in the usual
manner under the suzerainty of the Porte; but these princes,
independently of each other, had entered into negotiations
with Peter the Great after the defeat of Charles XII. at
Pultawa (1709), to assist them against the Sultan, their
suzerain, stipulating for their own independence under the
protection of the Czar." Peter was induced to enter the
country with a considerable army [1711], but soon found
himself in a position from which there appeared little chance
of escape. He was extricated only by the cleverness of the
Czarina, who bribed the Turkish commander with her jewels.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

The Moldavian Voivode escaped with the Russians. The
Wallachian, Brancovano, was seized, taken to Constantinople,
and put to death, along with his four sons. "Stephen
Cantacuzene, the son of his accusers, was made Voivode of
Wallachia, but like his predecessors he only enjoyed the
honour for a brief term, and two years afterwards he was
deposed, ordered to Constantinople, imprisoned, and
decapitated; and with him terminated the rule of the native
princes, who were followed, both in Wallachia and Moldavia, by
the so-called Phanariote governors [see PHANARIOTES] or
farmers-general of the Porte."

_J. Samuelson, Roumania, Past and Present,
part 2, chapter 11-13._

BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries:
(Montenegro) The new Servia.

"The people that inhabit the two territories known on the map
as Servia and Montenegro are one and the same. If you ask a
Montenegrin what language he speaks, he replies 'Serb.' The
last of the Serb Czars fell gloriously fighting at Kossovo in
1389 [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389]. To this day the Montenegrin
wears a strip of black silk upon his headgear in memory of
that fatal day. ... The brave Serbs who escaped from Kossovo
found a sanctuary in the mountains that overlook the Bay of
Cattaro. Their leader, Ivo, surnamed Tsernoi (Black), gave the
name of Tzrnogora (Montenegro) to these desert rocks. ...
Servia having become a Turkish province, her colonists created
in Montenegro a new and independent Servia [see TURKS: A. D.
1451-1481]. The memory of Ivo the Black is still green in the
country. Springs, ruins, and caverns are called after him,
and the people look forward to the day when he will reappear
as a political Messiah. But Ivo's descendants proved unworthy
of him; they committed the unpardonable sin of marrying
aliens, and early in the 16th century the last descendant of
Ivo the Black retired to Venice.
{250}
From 1516 to 1697 Montenegro
was ruled by elective Vladikas or Bishops; from 1697 to 1851
by hereditary Vladikas. For the Montenegrins the 16th, 17th
and 18th centuries formed a period of incessant warfare. ...
Up till 1703 the Serbs of the mountain were no more absolutely
independent of the Sultan than their enslaved kinsmen of the
plain. The Havatch or Sultan's slipper tax was levied on the
mountaineers. In 1703 Danilo Petrovitch celebrated his
consecration as a Christian Bishop by ordering the slaughter
of every Mussulman who refused to be baptised. This massacre
took place on Christmas Eve 1703. ... The 17th and 18th
centuries were for Montenegro a struggle for existence. In the
19th century began their struggle for an outlet to the sea.
The fall of Venice would naturally have given the mountaineers
the bay of Cattaro, had not the French stepped in and annexed
Dalmatia." In 1813, the Vladika, Peter I., "with the aid of
the British fleet ... took Cattaro from the French, but
(pursuant to an arrangement between Russia and Austria) was
compelled subsequently to relinquish it to the latter power.
... Peter I. of Montenegro ... died in 1830, at the age of 80.
... His nephew Peter II. was a wise ruler. ... On the death of
Peter II., Prince Danilo, the uncle of the present Prince,
went to Russia to be consecrated Bishop of Montenegro. The
czar seems to have laughed him out of this ancient practice;
and the late Prince instead of converting himself into monk
and bishop returned to his own country and married [1851]. ...
Prince Danilo was assassinated at Cattaro (1860). ... He was
succeeded by his nephew Nicholas."

_J. G. C. Minchin, Servia and Montenegro (National Life
and Thought, lecture 19)._

"The present form of government in Montenegro is at once the
most despotic and the most popular in Europe--despotic,
because the will of the Prince is the law of the land; and
popular, because the personal rule of the Prince meets all the
wants and wishes of the people. No Sovereign in Europe sits so
firmly on his throne as the Prince of this little State, and
no Sovereign is so absolute. The Montenegrins have no army;
they are themselves a standing army."

_J. G. C. Minchin, The Growth of Freedom in the Balkan
Peninsula, chapter 1._

_A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

_L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, &c.: Slave Provinces of
Turkey, chapter 2-6._

"Montenegro is an extremely curious instance of the way in
which favourable geographical conditions may aid a small
people to achieve a fame and a place in the world quite out of
proportion to their numbers. The Black Mountain is the one
place where a South Sclavonic community maintained themselves
in independence, sometimes seeing their territory overrun by
the Turks, but never acknowledging Turkish authority de jure
from the time of the Turkish Conquest of the 15th century down
to the Treaty of Berlin. Montenegro could not have done that
but for her geographical structure. She is a high mass of
limestone; you cannot call it a plateau, because it is seamed
by many valleys, and rises into many sharp mountain-peaks.
Still, it is a mountain mass, the average height of which is
rather more than 2,000 feet above the sea, with summits
reaching 5,000. It is bare limestone, so that there is hardly
anything grown on it, only grass--and very good grass--in
spots, with little patches of corn and potatoes, and it has
scarcely any water. Its upland is covered with snow in winter,
while in summer the invaders have to carry their water with
them, a serious difficulty when there were no roads, and
active mountaineers fired from behind every rock, a difficulty
which becomes more serious the larger the invading force.
Consequently it is one of the most impracticable regions
imaginable for an invading army. It is owing to those
circumstances that this handful of people--because the
Montenegrins of the 17th century did not number more than
40,000 or 50,000--have maintained their independence. That
they did maintain it is a fact most important in the history
of the Balkan Peninsula, and may have great consequences yet
to come."

_J. Bryce, Relations of History and Geography
(Contemporary Review, March, 1886)._

BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries.--(Servia):
The long oppression of the Turk.
Struggle for freedom under Kara Georg and Milosch.
Independence achieved.
The Obrenovitch dynasty.

"The brilliant victories of Stephan Dushan were a misfortune
to Christendom. They shattered the Greek empire, the last
feeble bulwark of Europe, and paved the way for those ultimate
successes of the Asiatic conquerors which a timely union of
strength might have prevented. Stephan Dushan conquered, but
did not consolidate: and his scourging wars were
insufficiently balanced by the advantage of the code of laws
to which he gave his·name. His son Urosh, being a weak and
incapable prince, was murdered by one of the generals of the
army, and thus ended the Neman dynasty, after having subsisted
212 years, and produced eight kings and two emperors. The
crown now devolved on Knes, or Prince Lasar; a connexion of
the house of Neman. ... Of all the ancient rulers of the
country, his memory is held the dearest by the Servians of the
present day." Knes Lasar perished in the fatal battle of
Kossovo, and with him fell the Servian monarchy.

See TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389, 1402-1451, and 1459;
also MONTENEGRO.

"The Turkish conquest was followed by the gradual dispersion
or disappearance of the native nobility of Servia, the last of
whom, the Brankovitch, lived as despots' in the castle of
Semendria up to the beginning of the 18th century. ... The
period preceding the second siege of Vienna was the
spring-tide of Islam conquest. After this event, in 1684,
began the ebb. Hungary was lost to the Porte, and six years
afterwards 37,000 Servian families emigrated into that
kingdom; this first led the way to contact with the
civilization of Germany. ... Servia Proper, for a short time
wrested from the Porte by the victories of Prince Eugene,
again became a part of the dominions of the Sultan."

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1739.

{251}

"But a turbulent militia overawed the government and tyrannized
over the Rayahs. Pasvan Oglou and his bands at Widdin were, at
the end of the last century, in open revolt against the Porte.
Other chiefs had followed his example; and for the first time
the Divan thought of associating Christian Rayahs with the
spahis, to put down these rebels. The Dahis, as these
brigand-chiefs were called, resolved to anticipate the
approaching struggle by a massacre of the most influential
Christians. This atrocious massacre was carried out with
indescribable horrors. ... Kara Georg [Black George], a
peasant, born at Topola about the year 1767, getting timely
information that his name was in the list of the doomed, fled
into the woods, and gradually organized a formidable force. In
the name of the Porte he combated the Dahis, who had usurped
local authority in defiance of the Pasha of Belgrade. The
Divan, little anticipating the ultimate issue of the struggle
in Servia, was at first delighted at the success of Kara
Georg; but soon saw with consternation that the rising of the
Servian peasants grew into a formidable rebellion, and ordered
the Pashas of Bosnia and Scodra to assemble all their
disposable forces and invade Servia. Between 40,000 and 50,000
Bosniacs burst into Servia on the west, in the spring of 1806,
cutting to pieces all who refused to receive Turkish
authority. Kara Georg undauntedly met the storm," defeating
the Turkish forces near Tchoupria, September, 1804, and more
severely two years later (August, 1806) at Shabatz. In
December of the same year he surprised and took Belgrade. "The
succeeding years were passed in the vicissitudes of a guerilla
warfare, neither party obtaining any marked success; and an
auxiliary corps of Russians assisted in preventing the Turks
from making the re-conquest of Servia. ... Kara Georg was now
a Russian lieutenant-general, and exercised an almost
unlimited power in Servia; the revolution, after a struggle of
eight years, appeared to be successful, but the momentous
events then passing in Europe completely altered the aspect of
affairs. Russia, in 1812, on the approach of the countless
legions of Napoleon, precipitately concluded the treaty of
Bucharest, the eighth article of which formally assured a
separate administration to the Servians. Next year, however,
was fatal to Kara Georg. In 1813, the vigour of the Ottoman
empire ... was now concentrated on the resubjugation of
Servia. A general panic seemed to seize the nation; and Kara
Georg and his companions in arms sought a retreat on the
Austrian territory, and thence passed into Wallachia. In 1814,
300 Christians were impaled at Belgrade by the Pasha, and
every valley in Servia presented the spectacle of infuriated
Turkish spahis avenging on the Servians the blood, exile and
confiscation of the ten preceding years. At this period,
Milosh Obrenovitch appears prominently on the political tapis.
He spent his youth in herding the famed swine of Servia; and
during the revolution was employed by Kara Georg to watch the
passes of the Balkans. ... He now saw that a favourable
conjuncture had come for his advancement from the position of
chieftain to that of chief; he therefore lost no time in
making terms with the Turks, offering to collect the tribute,
to serve them faithfully, and to aid them in the resubjugation
of the people. ... He now displayed singular activity in the
extirpation of all the other popular chiefs," until he found
reason to suspect that the Turks were only using him to
destroy him in the end. Then, in 1815, he turned upon them and
raised the standard of revolt. The movement which he headed
was so formidable that the Porte made haste to treat, and
Milosch made favourable terms for himself, being reinstated as
tribute-collector. "Many of the chiefs, impatient at the
speedy submission of Milosh, wished to fight the matter out,
and Kara Georg, in order to give effect to their plans, landed
in Servia. Milosh pretended to be friendly to his designs, but
secretly betrayed his place of concealment to the governor,
whose men broke into the cottage where he slept, and put him
to death."

_A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
book 1, chapter 3._

"In 1817 Milosch was proclaimed hereditary Prince of Servia by
the National Assembly. ... In 1830 the autonomy of Servia was
at length solemnly recognized by the Porte, and Milosch
proclaimed 'the father of the Fatherland.' ... If asked why
the descendants of Milosch still rule over Servia, and not the
descendants of Kara George, my answer is that every step in
Servian progress is connected with the Obrenovitch dynasty.
The liberation of the country, the creation of a peasant
proprietary, the final withdrawal of the Turkish troops from
Belgrade in 1862, the independence of the country, the
extension of its territory, and the making of its
railways,--all of these are among the results of Obrenovitch
rule. The founder of the dynasty had in 1830 a great
opportunity of making his people free as well as independent.
But Milosch had lived too long with Turks to be a lover of
freedom. ... In 1839 Milosch abdicated. The reason for this
step was that he refused to accept a constitution which Russia
and Turkey concocted for him. This charter vested the actual
government of the country in a Senate composed of Milosch's
rivals, and entirely independent of that Prince. ... It was
anti-democratic, no less than anti-dynastic. Milosch was
succeeded first by his son Milan, and on Milan's death by
Michael. Michael was too gentle for the troubled times in
which he lived, and after a two years's reign he too started
upon his travels. ... When Michael crossed the Save, Alexander
Kara Georgevitch was elected Prince of Servia. From 1842 to
1858 the son of Black George lived--he can scarcely be said to
have reigned--in Belgrade. During these 17 years this feeble
son of a strong man did absolutely nothing for his country.
... Late in 1858 he fled from Servia, and Milosch ruled in his
stead. Milosch is the Grand Old Man of Serb history. His mere
presence in Servia checked the intrigues of foreign powers. He
died peacefully in his bed. ... Michael succeeded his father.
... Prince Michael was murdered by convicts in the park at
Topschidera near Belgrade." He "was succeeded (1868) by Milan,
the grandson of Zephrem, the brother of Milosch. As Milan was
barely fourteen years of age, a Regency of three was
appointed."

_J. G. C. Minchin, Servia and Montenegro (National Life
and Thought, lecture 19)._

ALSO IN: _E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 6._

BALKAN: A. D. 1718 (Bosnia).
A part ceded to Austria by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

BALKAN: A. D. 1739 (Bosnia and Roumania).
Entire restoration of Bosnia to the Turks, and Cession of
Austrian Wallachia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

{252}

BALKAN: 19th Century (Roumania and Servia).
Awakening of a National Spirit.
The effect of historical teaching.

"No political fact is of more importance and interest in
modern continental history than the tenacity with which the
smaller nations of Europe preserve their pride of nationality
in the face of the growing tendency towards the formation of
large, strongly concentrated empires, supported by powerful
armies. Why should Portugal utterly refuse to unite with
Spain? Why do Holland and Belgium cling to their existence as
separate States, in spite of all the efforts of statesmen to
join them? Why do the people of Bohemia and Croatia, of
Finland, and of Poland, refuse to coalesce with the rest of
the population of the empires of which they form but small
sections? Why, finally, do the new kingdoms of Roumania and
Servia show such astonishing vitality? The arguments as to
distinctive race or' distinctive language fail to answer all
these questions. ... This rekindling of the national spirit is
the result chiefly of the development of the new historical
school all over the Continent. Instead of remaining in
ignorance of their past history, or, at best, regarding a mass
of legends as containing the true tale of their countries'
achievements, these small nations have now learnt from the
works of their great historians what the story of their
fatherlands really is, and what title they have to be proud of
their ancestors. These great historians--Herculano, Palacky,
Széchenyi, and the rest--who made it their aim to tell the
truth and not to show off the beauties of a fine literary
style, all belonged to the generation which had its interest
aroused in the history of the past by the novels of Sir Walter
Scott and the productions of the Romantic School, and they all
learnt how history was to be studied, and then written, from
Niebuhr, Von Ranke and their disciples and followers. From
these masters they learnt that their histories were not to be
made interesting at the expense of truth. ... The vitality of
the new historical school in Roumania is particularly
remarkable, for in the Danubian provinces, which form that
kingdom, even more strenuous efforts had been made to stamp
out the national spirit than in Bohemia. The extraordinary
rapidity with which the Roumanian people has reasserted itself
in recent years, is one of the most remarkable facts in modern
European history, and it is largely due to the labours of its
historians. Up till 1822 the Roumanian language was vigorously
proscribed; the rulers of the Danubian provinces permitted
instruction to the upper classes in the language of the rulers
only, and while Slavonic, and in the days of the Phanariots
Greek, was the official and fashionable language, used in
educating the nobility and bourgeois, the peasants were left
in ignorance. Four men, whose names deserve record, first
endeavoured to raise the Roumanian language to a literary
level, and not only studied Roumanian history, but tried to
teach the Roumanian people something of their own early
history. Of these four, George Schinkaï was by far the most
remarkable. He was an inhabitant of Transylvania, a Roumanian
province which still remains subject to Hungary, and he first
thought of trying to revive the Roumanian nationality by
teaching the people their history. He arranged the annals of
his country from A. D. 86 to A. D. 1739 with indefatigable
labour, during the last half of the 18th century, and,
according to Edgar Quinet, in such a truly modern manner,
after such careful weighing of original authorities, and with
such critical power, that he deserves to be ranked with the
creators of the modern historical school. It need hardly be
said that Schinkaï's History was not allowed to be printed by
the Hungarian authorities, who had no desire to see the
Roumanian nationality re-assert itself, and the censor marked
on it 'opus igne, auctor patibulo dignus.' It was not
published until 1853, more than forty years after its
completion, and then only at Jassy, for the Hungarians still
proscribed it in Transylvania. Schinkaï's friend, Peter Major,
was more fortunate in his work, a 'History of the Origin of
the Roumanians in Dacia,' which, as it did not touch on modern
society, was passed by the Hungarian censorship, and printed
at Buda Pesth in 1813. The two men who first taught Roumanian
history in the provinces which now form the kingdom of
Roumania were not such learned men as Schinkaï and Peter
Major, but their work was of more practical importance. In
1813 George Asaky got leave to open a Roumanian class at the
Greek Academy of Jassy, under the pretext that it was
necessary to teach surveying in the Roumanian tongue, because
of the questions which constantly arose in that profession, in
which it would be necessary to speak to the peasants in their
own language, and in his lectures he carefully inserted
lessons in Roumanian history, and tried to arouse the spirit
of the people. George Lazarus imitated him at Bucharest in
1816, and the fruit of this instruction was seen when the
Roumanians partially regained their freedom. The
Moldo-Wallachian princes encouraged the teaching of Roumanian
history, as they encouraged the growth of the spirit of
Roumanian independence, and when the Roumanian Academy was
founded, an historical section was formed with the special
mission of studying and publishing documents connected with
Roumanian history. The modern scientific spirit has spread
widely throughout the kingdom."

_H. Morse Stephens, Modern Historians and Small
Nationalities (Contemporary Review, July, 1887)._

BALKAN: A. D. 1829 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).
Important provisions of the Treaty of Adrianople.
Life Election of the Hospodars.
Substantial independence of the Turk.

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

BALKAN: A. D. 1856 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).
Privileges guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

BALKAN: A. D. 1858-1866.
(Roumania or Wallachia and Moldavia).
Union of the two provinces under one Crown.
Accession of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern.

See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

{253}

BALKAN: A. D. 1875-1878.
The Breaking of the Turkish yoke.
Bulgarian atrocities.
Russo-Turkish War.

In 1875, a revolt broke out in Herzegovina. "The efforts made
to suppress the growing revolt strained the already weakened
resources of the Porte, until they could bear up against it no
longer, and the Herzegovinese rebellion proved the last straw
which broke the back of Turkish solvency. ... The hopes of the
insurgents were of course quickened by this catastrophe,
which, as they saw, would alienate much sympathy from the
Turks. The advisers of the Sultan, therefore, thought it
necessary to be conciliatory, and ... they induced him to
issue an Iradé, or circular note, promising the remission of
taxes, and economical and social reforms. ... Europe, however,
had grown tired of the Porte's promises of amendment, and for
some time the Imperial Powers had been laying their heads
together, and the result of their consultations was the
Andrassy Note. The date of this document was December 30th,
1875, and it was sent to those of the Western Powers who had
signed the treaties of 1856. It declared that although the
spirit of the suggested reforms was good, there was some doubt
whether the Porte had the strength to carry them out; Count
Andrassy, therefore, proposed that the execution of the
necessary measures should be placed under the care of a
special commission, half the members of which should be
Mussulmans and half Christians. ... It concluded with a
serious warning, that if the war was not gone with the snow,
'the Governments of Servia and Montenegro, which have had
great difficulty in keeping aloof from the movement, will be
unable to resist the current.' ... It was evident, however,
that this note would have but little or no effect; it
contained no coercive precautions, and accordingly the Porte
quietly allowed the question to drop, and contented himself
with profuse promises. ... So affairs drifted on; the little
war continued to sputter on the frontier; reinforced by
Servians and Montenegrins, the Herzegovinese succeeded in
keeping their enemy at bay, and, instigated, it is said, by
Russian emissaries, put forward demands which the Porte was
unable to accept. ... The Powers, in no wise disconcerted by
the failure of their first attempt to settle the difficulties
between the Sultan and his rebellious subjects, had published
a sequel to the Andrassy Note. There was an informal
conference of the three Imperial Chancellors, Prince Bismarck,
Prince Gortschakoff, and Count Andrassy, at Berlin, in May.
... Then on May 18th the Ambassadors of England, France, and
Italy were invited to Prince Bismarck's house, and the text of
the famous Berlin Memorandum was laid before them. ... While
the three Chancellors were forging their diplomatic
thunderbolt, a catastrophe of such a terrible nature had
occurred in the interior of Turkey that all talk of armistices
and mixed commissions had become stale and unprofitable. The
Berlin Memorandum was not even presented to the Porte; for a
rumour, though carefully suppressed by Turkish officials, was
beginning to leak out that there had been an insurrection of
the Christian population of Bulgaria, and that the most
horrible atrocities had been committed by the Turkish
irregular troops in its suppression. It was communicated to
Lord Derby by Sir Henry Elliot on the 4th of May. ... On June
16th a letter was received from him at the Foreign Office,
saying, 'The Bulgarian insurrection appears to be
unquestionably put down, although I regret to say, with
cruelty, and, in some places, with brutality.' ... A week
afterwards the Constantinople correspondent of the Daily News
... gave the estimates of Bulgarians slain as varying from
18,000 to 30,000, and the number of villages destroyed at
about a hundred. ... That there was much truth in the
statements of the newspaper correspondents was ...
demonstrated beyond possibility of denial as soon as Sir Henry
Elliot's despatches were made public. ... 'I am satisfied,'
wrote Sir Henry Elliot, 'that, while great atrocities have
been committed, both by Turks upon Christians and Christians
upon Turks, the former have been by far the greatest, although
the Christians were undoubtedly the first to commence them.'
... Meanwhile, the Daily News had resolved on sending out a
special commissioner to make an investigation independent of
official reports. Mr. J. A. MacGahan, an American, who had
been one of that journal's correspondents during the
Franco-German War, was the person selected. He started in
company with Mr. Eugene Schuyler, the great authority on the
Central Asian question, who, in the capacity of
Consul-General, was about to prepare a similar statement for
the Honorable Horace Maynard, the United States Minister at
Constantinople. They arrived at Philippopolis on the 25th of
July; where Mr. Walter Baring, one of the Secretaries of the
British Legation at Constantinople, was already engaged in
collecting information. The first of Mr. MacGahan's letters
was dated July the 28th, and its publication in this country
revived in a moment the half-extinct excitement of the
populace. ... Perhaps the passage which was most frequently in
men's mouths at the time was that in which he described the
appearance of the mountain village of Batak. 'We entered the
town. On every side were skulls and skeletons charred among
the ruins, or lying entire where they fell in their clothing.
There were skeletons of girls and women, with long brown hair
hanging to their skulls. We approached the church. There these
remains were more frequent, until the ground was literally
covered by skeletons, skulls, and putrefying bodies in
clothing. Between the church and school there were heaps. The
stench was fearful. We entered the churchyard. The sight was
more dreadful. The whole churchyard, for three feet deep, was
festering with dead bodies, partly covered; hands, legs, arms,
and heads projecting in ghastly confusion. I saw many little
hands, heads, and feet of children three years of age, and
girls with heads covered with beautiful hair. The church was
still worse. The floor was covered with rotting bodies quite
uncovered. I never imagined anything so fearful. ... The town
had 9,000 inhabitants. There now remain 1,200. Many who had
escaped had returned recently, weeping and moaning over their
ruined homes. Their sorrowful wailing could be heard half a
mile off. Some were digging out the skeletons of loved ones. A
woman was sitting moaning over three small skulls, with hair
clinging to them, which she had in her lap. The man who did
this, Achmed Agra, has been promoted, and is still governor of
the district.' An exceeding bitter cry of horror and disgust
arose throughout the country on the receipt of this terrible
news. Mr. Anderson at once asked for information on the
subject, and Mr. Bourke was entrusted with the difficult duty
of replying. He could only read a letter from Mr. Baring, in
which he said that, as far as he had been able to discover,
the proportion of the numbers of the slain was about 12,000
Bulgarians to 500 Turks, and that 60 villages had been wholly
or partially burnt. ... Mr. Schuyler's opinions were, as might
be expected from the circumstance that his investigations had
been shorter than those of Mr. Baring, and that he was
ignorant of the Turkish language--which is that chiefly spoken
in Bulgaria--and was therefore at the mercy of his
interpreter, the more highly coloured. He totally rejected
Lord Beaconsfield's idea that there had been a civil war, and
that cruelties had been committed on both sides. On the
contrary he asserted that 'the insurgent villages made little
or no resistance.
{254}
In many cases they surrendered their arms on the first demand.
... No Turkish women or children were killed in cold blood. No
Mussulman women were, violated. No Mussulmans were tortured.
No purely Turkish village was attacked or burnt. No Mosque was
desecrated or destroyed. The Bashi-Bazouks, on the other hand,
had burnt about 65 villages, and killed at least 15,000
Bulgarians.' The terrible story of the destruction of Batak
was told in language of precisely similar import to that of
Mr. MacGahan, whose narrative the American Consul had never
seen, though there was a slight difference in the numbers of
the massacred. 'Of the 8,000 inhabitants,' he said, 'not 2,000
are known to survive'. ... Abdul Aziz had let loose the hordes
of Bashi-Bazouks on defenceless Bulgaria, but Murad seemed
utterly unable to rectify the fatal error; the province fell
into a state of complete anarchy. ... As Lord Derby remarked,
it was impossible to effect much with an imbecile monarch and
bankrupt treasury. One thing, at any rate, the Turks were
strong enough to do, and that was to defeat the Servians, who
declared war on Turkey on July 1st. ... Up to the last Prince
Milan declared that his intentions were purely pacific; but
the increasing troubles of the Porte enabled him, with some
small chance of success, to avail himself of the anti-Turkish
spirit of his people and to declare war. His example was
followed by Prince Nikita of Montenegro, who set out with his
brave little army from Cettigne on July 2nd. At first if
appeared as if the principalities would have the better of the
struggle. The Turkish generals showed their usual dilatoriness
in attacking Servia, and Tchernaieff, who was a man of
considerable military talent, gave them the good-bye, and cut
them off from their base of operations. This success was,
however, transitory; Abdul Kerim, the Turkish
Commander-in·Chief, drove back the enemy by mere force of
numbers, and by the end of the month he was over the border.
Meanwhile, the hardy Montenegrins had been considerably more
fortunate; but their victories over Mukhtar Pasha were not
sufficiently important to effect a diversion. The Servians
fell back from all their positions of defence, and on
September 1st received a most disastrous beating before the
walls of Alexinatz. ... On September 16th the Porte agreed to
a suspension of hostilities until the 25th. It must be
acknowledged that the Servians used this period of grace
exceedingly ill. Prince Milan was proclaimed by General
Tchernaieff, in his absence and against his will, King of
Servia and Bosnia; and though, on the remonstrance of the
Powers, he readily consented to waive the obnoxious title, the
evil effect of the declaration remained. Lord Derby's
proposals for peace, which were made on September 21st, were
nevertheless accepted by the Sultan when he saw that unanimity
prevailed among the Powers, and he offered in addition to
prolong the formal suspension of hostilities to October 2nd.
This offer the Servians, relying on the Russian volunteers who
were flocking to join Tchernaieff, rejected with some
contempt, and hostilities were resumed. They paid dearly for
their temerity. Tchernaieff's position before Alexinatz was
forced by the Turks after three days' severe fighting;
position after position yielded to them; on October 31st
Alexinatz was taken, and Deligrad was occupied on November
1st. Nothing remained between the outpost of the crescent and
Belgrade, and it seemed as if the new Kingdom of Servia must
perish in the throes of its birth." Russia now invoked the
intervention of the powers, and brought about a conference at
Constantinople, which effected nothing, the Porte rejecting
all the proposals submitted. On the 24th of April, 1877,
Russia declared war and entered upon a conflict with the
Turks, which had for its result the readjustment of affairs in
South-eastern Europe by the Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

_Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
volume 10, chapter 22-23._

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.

BALKAN: A. D. 1878.
Treaty of Berlin.
Transfer of Bosnia to Austria.
Independence of Servia, Montenegro and Roumania.
Division and semi-independence of Bulgaria.

"(1) Bosnia, including Herzegovina, was assigned to Austria
for permanent occupation. Thus Turkey lost a great province of
nearly 1,250,000 inhabitants. Of these about 500,000 were
Christians of the Greek Church, 450,000 were Mohammedans,
mainly in the towns, who offered a stout resistance to the
Austrian troops, and 200,000 Roman Catholics. By the
occupation of the Novi-Bazar district Austria wedged in her
forces between Montenegro and Servia, and was also able to
keep watch over the turbulent province of Macedonia. (2)
Montenegro received less than the San Stefano terms had
promised her, but secured the seaports of Antivari and
Dulcigno. It needed a demonstration of the European fleets off
the latter port, and a threat to seize Smyrna, to make the
Turks yield Dulcigno to the Montenegrians (who alone of all
the Christian races of the peninsula had never been conquered
by the Turks). (3) Servia was proclaimed an independent
Principality, and received the district of Old Servia on the
upper valley of the Morava. (4) Roumania also gained her
independence and ceased to pay any tribute to the Porte, but
had to give up to her Russian benefactors the slice acquired
from Russia in 1856 between the Pruth and the northern mouth
of the Danube. In return for this sacrifice she gained the
large but marshy Dobrudscha district from Bulgaria, and so
acquired the port of Kustendje on the Black Sea. (5) Bulgaria,
which, according to the San Stefano terms, would have been an
independent State as large as Roumania, was by the Berlin
Treaty subjected to the suzerainty of the sultan, divided into
two parts, and confined within much narrower limits. Besides
the Dobrudscha, it lost the northern or Bulgarian part of
Macedonia, and the Bulgarians who dwelt between the Balkans
and Adrianople were separated from their kinsfolk on the north
of the Balkans, in a province called Eastern Roumelia, with
Philippopolis as capital. The latter province was to remain
Turkish, under a Christian governor nominated by the Porte
with the consent of the Powers. Turkey was allowed to occupy
the passes of the Balkans in time of war."

_J. H. Rose, A Century of Continental History, chapter 42._

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

ALSO IN: _E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 4, nos. 518, 524-532._

{255}

BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1891.
Proposed Balkan Confederation and its aims.

"During the reaction against Russia which followed the great
war of 1878, negotiations were actually set on foot with a
view to forming a combination of the Balkan States for the
purpose of resisting Russian aggression. ... Prince Alexander
always favoured the idea of a Balkan Confederation which was
to include Turkey; and even listened to proposals on the part
of Greece, defining the Bulgarian and Greek spheres of
influence in Macedonia. But the revolt of Eastern Roumelia,
followed by the Servo-Bulgarian war and the chastisement of
Greece by the Powers, provoked so much bitterness of feeling
among the rival races that for many years nothing more was
heard of a Balkan Confederation. The idea has lately been
revived under different auspices and with somewhat different
aims. During the past six years the Triple Alliance, with
England, has, despite the indifference of Prince Bismarck,
protected the Balkan States in general, and Bulgaria in
particular from the armed intervention of Russia. It has also
acted the part of policeman in preserving the peace throughout
the Peninsula, and in deterring the young nations from any
dangerous indulgence in their angry passions. The most
remarkable feature in the history of this period has been the
extraordinary progress made by Bulgaria. Since the revolt of
Eastern Roumelia, Bulgaria has been treated by Dame Europa as
a naughty child. But the Bulgarians have been shrewd enough to
see that the Central Powers and England have an interest in
their national independence and consolidation; they have
recognised the truth that fortune favours those who help
themselves, and they have boldly taken their own course, while
carefully avoiding any breach of the proprieties such as might
again bring them under the censure of the European Areopagus.
They ventured, indeed, to elect a Prince of their own choosing
without the sanction of that august conclave; the wiseacres
shook their heads, and prophesied that Prince Ferdinand's days
in Bulgaria might, perhaps, be as many as Prince Alexander's
years. Yet Prince Ferdinand remains on the throne, and is now
engaged in celebrating the fourth anniversary of his
accession; the internal development of the country proceeds
apace, and the progress of the Bulgarian sentiment outside the
country--in other words, the Macedonian propaganda—is not a
whit behind. The Bulgarians have made their greatest strides
in Macedonia since the fall of Prince Bismarck, who was always
ready to humour Russia at the expense of Bulgaria. … What
happened after the great war of 1878? A portion of the
Bulgarian race was given a nominal freedom which was never
expected to be a reality; Russia pounced on Bessarabia,
England on Cyprus, Austria on Bosnia and Herzegovina. France
got something elsewhere, but that is another matter. The
Bulgarians have never forgiven Lord Beaconsfield for the
division of their race, and I have seen some bitter poems upon
the great Israelite in the Bulgarian tongue which many
Englishmen would not care to hear translated. The Greeks have
hated us since our occupation of Cyprus, and firmly believe
that we mean to take Crete as well. The Servians have not
forgotten how Russia, after instigating them to two disastrous
wars, dealt with their claims at San Stefano; they cannot
forgive Austria for her occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
and every Servian peasant, as he pays his heavy taxes, or
reluctantly gives a big price for some worthless imported
article, feels the galling yoke of her fiscal and commercial
tyranny. Need it be said how outraged Bulgaria scowls at
Russia, or how Roumania, who won Plevna for her heartless
ally, weeps for her Bessarabian children, and will not be
comforted? It is evident that the Balkan peoples have no
reason to expect much benefit from the next great war, from
the European Conference which will follow it, or from the
sympathy of the Christian Powers. ... What, then, do the
authors of the proposed Confederation suggest as its ultimate
aim and object? The Balkan States are to act independently of
the foreign Powers, and in concert with one another. The Sick
Man's inheritance lies before them, and they are to take it
when an opportunity presents itself. They must not wait for
the great Armageddon, for then all may be lost. If the Central
Powers come victorious out of the conflict, Austria, it is
believed, will go to Salonika; if Russia conquers, she will
plant her standard at Stamboul, and practically annex the
Peninsula. In either ease the hopes of the young nations will
be destroyed forever. It is, therefore, sought to extricate a
portion at least of the Eastern Question from the tangled web
of European politics, to isolate it, to deal with it as a
matter which solely concerns the Sick Man and his immediate
successors. It is hoped that the Sick Man may be induced by
the determined attitude of his expectant heirs to make over to
them their several portions in his lifetime; should he refuse,
they must act in concert, and provide euthanasia for the
moribund owner of Macedonia, Crete, and Thrace. In other
words, it is believed that the Balkan States, if once they
could come to an understanding as regards their claims to what
is left of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, might conjointly, and
without the aid of any foreign Power, bring such pressure to
bear upon Turkey as to induce her to surrender peaceably her
European possessions, and to content herself henceforth with
the position of an Asiatic Power."

_J. D. Bourchier, A Balkan Confederation (Fortnightly
Review, Sept., 1891)._

BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1886 (Bulgaria):
Reunion of the two Bulgarias.
Hostility of Russia.
Victorious war with Servia.
Abduction and abdication of Prince Alexander.