Volume I—A To Elba (continued 18)

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."

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 [December 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.

"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, chapters 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, numbers 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, September, 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.

"The Berlin Treaty, by cutting Bulgaria into three pieces, contrary to the desire of her inhabitants, and with utter disregard of both geographical and ethnical fitness, had prepared the ground from which a crop of never-ending agitation was inevitably bound to spring—a crop which the Treaty of San Stefano would have ended in preventing. On either side of the Balkans, both in Bulgaria and in Roumelia, the same desire for union existed. Both parties were agreed as to this, and only differed as to the means by which the end should be attained. The Liberals were of opinion that the course of events ought to be awaited; the unionists, on the other hand, maintained that they should be challenged. It was a few individuals belonging to the latter party and acting with M. Karaveloff, the head of the Bulgarian Cabinet, who prepared and successfully carried out the revolution of September 18, 1885. So unanimously was this movement supported by the whole population, including even the Mussulmans, that it was accomplished and the union proclaimed without the least resistance being encountered, and without the shedding of one drop of blood! {256} Prince Alexander was in no way made aware of what was in preparation; but he knew very well that it would be his duty to place himself at the head of any national movement, and in a proclamation dated the 19th of September, and addressed from Tirnova, the ancient capital, he recommended union and assumed the title of Prince of North and South Bulgaria. The Porte protested in a circular, dated the 23rd of September, and called upon the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Berlin, to enforce the observance of its stipulations. On the 13th of October, the Powers collectively declare 'that they condemn this violation of the Treaty, and are sure that the Sultan will do all that he can, consistently with his sovereign rights, before resorting to the force which he has at his disposal.' From the moment when there was opposition to the use of force, which even the Porte did not seem in a hurry to employ, the union of the two Bulgarias necessarily became an accomplished fact. … Whilst England and Austria both accepted the union of the two Bulgarias as being rendered necessary by the position of affairs, whilst even the Porte (although protesting) was resigned, the Emperor of Russia displayed a passionate hostility to it, not at all in accord with the feelings of the Russian nation. … In Russia they had reckoned upon all the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of Tirnova becoming so many causes of disorder and anarchy, instead of which the Bulgarians were growing accustomed to freedom. Schools were being endowed, the country was progressing in every way, and thus the Bulgarians were becoming less and less fitted for transformation into Russian subjects. Their lot was a preferable one, by far, to that of the people of Russia—henceforth they would refuse to accept the Russian yoke! … If, then, Russia wanted to maintain her high-handed policy in Bulgaria, she must oppose the union and hinder the consolidation of Bulgarian nationality by every means in her power; this she has done without scruple of any sort or kind, as will be shown by a brief epitome of what has happened recently. Servia, hoping to extend her territory in the direction of Tru and Widdin, and, pleading regard for the Treaty of Berlin and the theory of the balance of power, attacks Bulgaria. On November 14th [17th to 19th?] 1885, Prince Alexander defends the Slivnitza positions [in a three days' battle] with admirable courage and strategic skill. The Roumelian militia, coming in by forced marches of unheard-of length, perform prodigies of valour in the field. Within eight days, i. e., from the 20th to the 28th of November, the Servian army, far greater in numbers, is driven back into its own territory; the Dragoman Pass is crossed; Pirot is taken by assault; and Prince Alexander is marching on Nisch, when his victorious progress is arrested by the Austrian Minister, under threats of an armed intervention on the part of that country! On December 21st, an armistice is concluded, afterwards made into a treaty of pence, and signed at Bucharest on March 3rd by M. Miyatovitch on behalf of Servia, by M. Guechoff on behalf of Bulgaria, and by Madgid Pascha for the Sultan. Prince Alexander did all he could to bring about a reconciliation with the Czar and even went so far as to attribute to Russian instructors all the merit of the victories he had just won. The Czar would not yield. Then the Prince turned to the Sultan, and with him succeeded in coming to a direct understanding. The Prince was to be nominated Governor-General of Roumelia; a mixed Commission was to meet and modify the Roumelian statutes; more than this, the Porte was bound to place troops at his disposal in the event of his being attacked, … From that date the Czar swore that he would cause Prince Alexander's downfall. It was said that Prince Alexander of Battenberg had changed into a sword the sceptre which Russia had given him and was going to turn it against his benefactor. Nothing could be more untrue. Up to the very last moment, he did everything he could to disarm the anger of the Czar, but what was wanted from him was this—that he should make Bulgaria an obedient satellite of Russia, and rather than consent to do so he left Sofia. The story of the Prince's dethronement by Russian influence, or, as Lord Salisbury said, by Russian gold, is well known. A handful of malcontent officers, a few cadets of the École Militaire, and some of Zankoff's adherents, banding themselves together, broke into the palace during the night of the 21st of August, seized the Prince, and had him carried off, without escort, to Rahova on the Danube, from thence to Reni in Bessarabia, where he was handed over to the Russians! The conspirators endeavoured to form a government, but the whole country rose against them, in spite of the support openly given them by M. Bogdanoff the Russian diplomatic agent. On the 3rd of September, a few days after these occurrences, Prince Alexander returned to his capital, welcomed home by the acclamations of the whole people; but in answer to a respectful, not to say too humble, telegram in which he offered to replace his Crown in the hands of the Czar, that potentate replied that he ceased to have any relations with Bulgaria as long as Prince Alexander remained there. Owing to advice which came, no doubt, from Berlin, Prince Alexander decided to abdicate; he did so because of the demands of the Czar and in the interests of Bulgaria."

E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, Introduction.

ALSO IN: A. Von Huhn, The Struggle of the Bulgarians.

J. G. C. Minchin, Growth of Freedom in the Balkan Peninsula.

A. Koch, Prince Alexander of Battenberg.

BALKAN: A. D. 1879-1889 (Servia). Quarrels and divorce of King Milan and Queen Natalia. Abdication of the King.

"In October, 1875. … Milan, then but twenty-one years old, married Natalia Kechko, herself but sixteen. The present Queen was the daughter of a Russian officer and of the Princess Pulckerie Stourdza. She, as little as her husband, had been born with a likelihood to sit upon the throne, and a quiet burgher education had been hers at Odessa. But even here her great beauty attracted notice, as also her abilities, her ambition and her wealth. … At first all went well, to outward appearance at least, for Milan was deeply enamoured of his beautiful wife, who soon became the idol of the Servians, on account of her beauty and her amiability. This affection was but increased when, a year after her marriage, she presented her subjects with an heir. But from that hour the domestic discord began. The Queen had been ill long and seriously after her boy's birth; Milan had sought distractions elsewhere. Scenes of jealousy and recrimination grew frequent. {257} Further, Servia was then passing through a difficult political crisis: the Turkish war was in full swing. Milan, little beloved ever since he began to reign, brought home no wreaths from this conflict, although his subjects distinguished themselves by their valour. Then followed in 1882 the raising of the principality into a kingdom—a fact which left the Servians very indifferent, and in which they merely beheld the prospect of increased taxes, a prevision that was realized. As time went on, and troubles increased, King Milan became somewhat of a despot, who was sustained solely by the army, itself undermined by factious intrigues. Meantime the Queen, now grown somewhat callous to her husband's infidelities, aspired to comfort herself by assuming a political role, for which she believed herself to have great aptitude. … As she could not influence the decisions of the Prince, the lady entered into opposition to him, and made it her aim to oppose all his projects. The quarrel spread throughout the entire Palace, and two inimical factions were formed, that of the King and that of the Queen. … Meantime Milan got deeper and deeper into debt, so that after a time he had almost mortgaged his territory. … While the husband and wife were thus quarrelling and going their own ways, grave events were maturing in neighbouring Bulgaria. The coup d'état of Fillippopoli, which annexed Eastern Roumelia to the principality, enlarged it in such wise that Servia henceforth had to cut a sorry figure in the Balkans. Milan roused himself, or pretended to rouse himself, and war was declared against Bulgaria. … There followed the crushing defeat of Slivnitza, in which Prince Alexander of Battenberg carried off such laurels, and the Servians had to beat a disgraceful and precipitate retreat. Far from proving himself the hero Nathalie had dreamed, Milan … telegraphed to the Queen, busied with tending the wounded, that he intended to abdicate forthwith. This cowardly conduct gave the death blow to any feeling the Queen might have retained for the King. Henceforth she despised him, and took no pains to hide the fact. … In 1887 the pair parted without outward scandals, the Queen taking with her the Crown Prince. … Florence was the goal of the Queen's wanderings, and here she spent a quiet winter. … The winter ended, Nathalie desired to return to Belgrade. Milan would not hear of it. … The Queen went to Wiesbaden in consequence. While residing there Milan professed to be suddenly taken with a paternal craving to see his son. … And to the shame of the German Government, be it said, they lent their hand to abducting an only child from his mother. … Before ever the excitement about this act could subside in Europe, Milan … petitioned the Servian Synod for a divorce, on the ground of 'irreconcilable mutual antipathy.' Neither by canonical or civil law was this possible, and the Queen refused her consent. … Nor could the divorce have been obtained but for the servile complaisance of the Servian Metropolitan Theodore. … Quick vengeance, however, was in store for Milan. The international affairs of Servia had grown more and more disturbed. … The King, perplexed, afraid, storm-tossed between divided counsels, highly irritable, and deeply impressed by Rudolph of Hapsburg's recent suicide, suddenly announced his intention to abdicate in favour of his son. … Without regret his people saw depart from among them a man who at thirty-five years of age was already decrepit, and who had not the pluck or ambition to try and overcome a difficult political crisis. … After kneeling down before his son and swearing fidelity to him as a subject (March, 1889), Milan betook himself off to tour through Europe … leaving the little boy and his guardians to extricate themselves. … 'Now I can see mamma again,' were the first words of the boy King on hearing of his elevation. … Three Regents are appointed to aid the King during his minority."

"Politikos," The Sovereigns, pages 353-363.

—————BALKAN: End—————

BALKH. Destruction by Jingis Khan (A. D. 1221).

From his conquest of the region beyond the Oxus, Jingis Khan moved southward with his vast horde of Mongols, in pursuit of the fugitive Khahrezmian prince, in 1220 or 1221, and invested the great city of Balkh,—which is thought in the east to be the oldest city of the world, and which may not impossibly have been one of the capitals of the primitive Aryan race. "Some idea of its extent and riches [at that time] may possibly be formed from the statement that it contained 1,200 large mosques, without including chapels, and 200 public baths for the use of foreign merchants and travellers—though it has been suggested that the more correct reading would be 200 mosques and 1,200 baths. Anxious to avert the horrors of storm and pillage, the citizens at once offered to capitulate; but Chinghiz, distrusting the sincerity of their submission so long as Sultan Mohammed Shah was yet alive, preferred to carry the place by force of arms—an achievement of no great difficulty. A horrible butchery ensued, and the 'Tabernacle of Islam'—as the pious town was called—was razed to the ground. In the words of the Persian poet, quoted by Major Price, 'The noble city he laid as smooth as the palm of his hand—its spacious and lofty structures he levelled in the dust.'"

J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, chapter 3.

BALL'S BLUFF, The Battle of.

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

BALMACEDA'S DICTATORSHIP.

See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

BALNEÆ.

SEE THERMÆ.

BALTHI, OR BALTHINGS.

"The rulers of the Visigoths, though they, like the Amal kings of the Ostrogoths, had a great house, the Balthi, sprung from the seed of gods, did not at this time [when driven across the Danube by the Huns] bear the title of King, but contented themselves with some humbler designation, which the Latin historians translated into Judex (Judge)."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, introduction, chapter 3.

See BAUX, LORDS OF.

BALTIMORE, Lord, and the Colonization of Maryland.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, to 1688-1757.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1729-1730. Founding of the city.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1812. Rioting of the War Party. The mob and the Federalists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

{258}

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1814. British attempt against the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1860. The Douglas Democratic and Constitutional Union Conventions.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (April). The city controlled by the Secessionists. The Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

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

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (May). Disloyalty put down.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

—————BALTIMORE: End—————

BALUCHISTAN.

See Supplement in volume 5.

BAN. BANAT.

"Ban is Duke (Dux), and Banat is Duchy. The territory [Hungarian] east of the Carpathians is the Banat of Severin, and that of the west the Banat of Temesvar. … The Banat is the cornucopia, not only of Hungary, but of the whole Austrian Empire."

A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic, volume 2, page 28.

Among the Croats, "after the king, the most important officers of the state were the bans. At first there was but one ban, who was a kind of lieutenant-general; but later on there were seven of them, each known by the name of the province he governed, as the ban of Sirmia, ban of Dalmatia, etc. To this day the royal lieutenant of Croatia (or 'governor-general,' if that title be preferred) is called the ban."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, page 55.

BAN, The Imperial.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BANBURY, Battle of.

Sometimes called the "Battle of Edgecote"; fought July 26, 1469, and with success, by a body of Lancastrian insurgents, in the English "Wars of the Roses," against the forces of the Yorkist King, Edward IV. The latter were routed and most of their leaders' taken and beheaded.

Mrs. Hookham, Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou, volume 2, chapter 5.

BANDA ORIENTAL, The.

Signifying the "Eastern Border"; a name applied originally by the Spaniards to the country on the eastern side of Rio de La Plata which afterwards took the name of Uruguay.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

BANGALORE, Capture of (1790).

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

BANK OF ST. GEORGE.

See GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

BANKS, General Nathaniel P. Command in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

Siege and Capture of Port Hudson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Red River Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

BANKS OF AMSTERDAM, ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

The Bank of Amsterdam was founded in 1609, and replaced, after 1814. by the Netherland Bank. The Bank of England was founded in 1694 by William Patterson, a Scotchman; and that of France by John Law, in 1716. The latter collapsed with the Mississippi scheme and was revived in 1776.

J. J. Lalor, editor. Cyclopædia of Political Science.

ALSO IN: J. W. Gilbart, History and Principles of Banking, section 1 and 3.

BANKS, Wildcat.

See WILDCAT BANKS.

BANNACKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

BANNERETS, Knights.

See KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

BANNOCKBURN, Battle of (A. D. 1314).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314; and 1314-1328.

BANT, The.

See GAU.

BANTU TRIBES, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS; and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BAPTISTS.

See article in the Supplement, volume 5.

BAR, A. D. 1659-1735. The Duchy ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661, and 1733-1735.

BAR: The Confederation of.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

BARATHRUM, The.

"The barathrum, or 'pit of punishment' at Athens, was a deep hole like a well into which criminals were precipitated. Iron hooks were inserted in the sides; which tore the body in pieces as it fell. It corresponded to the Ceadas of the Lacedæmonians."

G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, book 7, section 133, note.

BARBADOES: A. D. 1649-1660. Royalist attitude towards the English Commonwealth.

See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.

BARBADOES: A. D. 1656. Cromwell's colony of disorderly women.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.

BARBARIANS.

See ARYANS.

BARBAROSSAS, Piracies and dominion of.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

—————BARBAROSSAS: End—————

BARBARY STATES.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 647-709. Mahometan conquest of North Africa.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 908-1171. The Fatimite Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1415. Siege and capture of Ceuta by the Portuguese.

See PORTUGAL: A. D.1415-1460.

{259}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510. Spanish conquests on the coast. Oran. Bugia. Algiers. Tripoli.

In 1505, a Spanish expedition planned and urged by Cardinal Ximenes, captured Mazarquiver, an "important port, and formidable nest of pirates, on the Barbary coast, nearly opposite Carthagena." In 1509, the same energetic prelate led personally an expedition of 4,000 horse and 10,000 foot, with a fleet of 10 galleys and 80 smaller vessels, for the conquest of Oran. "This place, situated about a league from the former, was one of the most considerable of the Moslem possessions in the Mediterranean, being a principal mart for the trade of the Levant," and maintained a swarm of cruisers, which swept the Mediterranean "and made fearful depredations on its populous borders." Oran was taken by storm. "No mercy was shown; no respect for age or sex; and the soldiery abandoned themselves to all the brutal license and ferocity which seem to stain religious wars above every other. … No less than 4,000 Moors were said to have fallen in the battle, and from 5,000 to 8,000 were made prisoners. The loss of the Christians was inconsiderable." Recalled to Spain by King Ferdinand, Ximenes left the army in Africa under the command of Count Pedro Navarro. Navarro's "first enterprise was against Bugia (January 13th, 1510), whose king, at the head of a powerful army, he routed in two pitched battles, and got possession of his flourishing capital (January 31st). Algiers, Teunis, Tremecin, and other cities on the Barbary coast, submitted one after another to the Spanish arms. The inhabitants were received as vassals of the Catholic king. … They guaranteed, moreover, the liberation of all Christian captives in their dominions; for which the Algerines, however, took care to indemnify themselves, by extorting the full ransom from their Jewish residents. …On the 26th of July, 1510, the ancient city of Tripoli, after a most bloody and desperate defence, surrendered to the arms of the victorious general, whose name had now become terrible along the whole northern borders of Africa. In the following month, however (Aug. 28th), he met with a serious discomfiture in the island of Gelves, where 4,000 of his men were slain or made prisoners. This check in the brilliant career of Count Navarro put a final stop to the progress of the Castilian arms in Africa under Ferdinand. The results obtained, however, were of great importance. … Most of the new conquests escaped from the Spanish crown in later times, through the imbecility or indolence of Ferdinand's successors. The conquests of Ximenes, however, were placed in so strong a posture of defence as to resist every attempt for their recovery by the enemy, and to remain permanently incorporated with the Spanish empire."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, chapter 21 (volume 3).

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535. Piratical dominion of the Barbarossas in Algiers. Establishment of Turkish sovereignty. Seizure of Tunis by the Corsairs and its conquest by Charles V.

"About the beginning of the 16th century, a sudden revolution happened, which, by rendering the states of Barbary formidable to the Europeans, hath made their history worthy of more attention. This revolution was brought about by persons born in a rank of life which entitled them to act no such illustrious part. Hornc and Hayradin, the sons of a potter in the isle of Lisbos, prompted by a restless and enterprising spirit, forsook their father's trade, ran to sea, and joined a crew of pirates. They soon distinguished themselves by their valor and activity, and, becoming masters of a small brigantine, carried on their infamous trade with such conduct and success that they assembled a fleet of 12 galleys, besides many vessels of smaller force. Of this fleet Hornc, the elder brother, called Barbarossa from the red color of his beard, was admiral, and Hayradin second in command, but with almost equal authority. They called themselves the friends of the sea, and the enemies of all who sail upon it; and their names soon became terrible from the Straits of the Dardanelles to those of Gibraltar. … They often carried the prizes which they took on the coasts of Spain and Italy into the ports of Barbary, and, enriching the inhabitants by the sale of their booty, and the thoughtless prodigality of their crews, were welcome guests in every place at which they touched. The convenient situation of these harbours, lying so near the greatest commercial states at that time in Christendom, made the brothers wish for an establishment in that country. An opportunity of accomplishing this quickly presented itself [1516], which they did not suffer to pass unimproved." Invited by Entemi, king of Algiers, to assist him in taking a Spanish fort which had been built in his neighbourhood, Barbarossa was able to murder his too confiding employer, master the Algerine kingdom and usurp its crown. "Not satisfied with the throne which he had acquired, he attacked the neighbouring king of Tremecen, and, having vanquished him in battle, added his dominions to those of Algiers. At the same time, he continued to infest the coasts of Spain and Italy with fleets which resembled the armaments of a great monarch, rather than the light squadrons of a corsair. Their frequent cruel devastations obliged Charles [the Fifth—the great Emperor and King of Spain: 1519-1555], about the beginning of his reign, to furnish the Marquis de Comares, governor of Oran, with troops sufficient to attack him." Barbarossa was defeated in the ensuing war, driven from Tremecen, and slain [1518]. "His brother Hayradin, known likewise by the name of Barbarossa, assumed the sceptre of Algiers with the same ambition and abilities, but with better fortune. His reign being undisturbed by the arms of the Spaniards, which had full occupation in the wars among the European powers, he regulated with admirable prudence the interior police of his kingdom, carried on his naval operations with great vigour, and extended his conquests on the continent of Africa. But perceiving that the Moors and Arabs submitted to his government with reluctance, and being afraid that his continual depredations would one day draw upon him the arms of the Christians, he put his dominions under the protection of the Grand Seignior [1519], and received from him [with the title of Bey, or Beylerbey] a body of Turkish soldiers sufficient for his domestic as well as foreign enemies. At last, the fame of his exploits daily increasing, Solyman offered him the command of the Turkish fleet. … Barbarossa repaired to Constantinople, and … gained the entire confidence both of the sultan and his vizier. To them he communicated a scheme which he had formed of making himself master of Tunis, the most flourishing kingdom at that time on the coast of Africa; and this being approved of by them, he obtained whatever he demanded for carrying it into execution. His hopes of success in this undertaking were founded on the intestine divisions in the kingdom of Tunis." The last king of that country, having 34 sons by different wives, had established one of the younger sons on the throne as his successor. This young king attempted to put all of his brothers to death; but Alraschid, who was one of the eldest, escaped and fled to Algiers. Barbarossa now proposed to the Turkish sultan to attack Tunis on the pretence of vindicating the rights of Alraschid. His proposal was adopted and carried out; but even before the Turkish expedition sailed. {260} Alraschid himself disappeared—a prisoner, shut up in the Seraglio—and was never heard of again. The use of his name, however, enabled Barbarossa to enter Tunis in triumph, and the betrayed inhabitants discovered too late that he came as a viceroy, to make them the subjects of the sultan. "Being now possessed of such extensive territories, he carried on his depredations against the Christian states to a greater extent and with more destructive violence than ever. Daily complaints of the outrages committed by his cruisers were brought to the emperor by his subjects, both in Spain and Italy. All Christendom seemed to expect from him, as its greatest and most fortunate prince, that he would put an end to this new and odious species of oppression. At the same time Muley-Hascen, the exiled king of Tunis, … applied to Charles as the only person who could assert his rights in opposition to such a formidable usurper." The Emperor, accordingly, in 1535, prepared a great expedition against Tunis, drawing men and ships from every part of his wide dominions—from Spain, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. "On the 16th of July the fleet, consisting of near 500 vessels, having on board above 30,000 regular troops, set sail from Cagliari, and, after a prosperous navigation, landed within sight of Tunis." The fort of Goletta, commanding the bay, was invested and taken; the corsair's fleet surrendered, and Barbarossa, advancing boldly from Tunis to attack the invaders, was overwhelmingly beaten, and fled, abandoning his capital. Charles's soldiers rushed into the unfortunate town, escaping all restraint, and making it a scene of indescribable horrors. "Above 30,000 of the innocent inhabitants perished on that unhappy day, and 10,000 were carried away as slaves. Muley-Hascen took possession of a throne surrounded with carnage, abhorred by his subjects, on whom he had brought such calamities." Before quitting the country, Charles concluded a treaty with Muley-Hascen, under which the latter acknowledged that he held his kingdom in fee of the crown of Spain, doing homage to the Emperor as his liege, and maintaining a Spanish garrison in the Goletta. He also released, without ransom, all the Christian slaves in his dominions, 20,000 in number, and promised to detain in servitude no subject of the Emperor thereafter. He opened his kingdom to the Christian religion, and to free trade, and pledged himself to exclude Turkish corsairs from his ports.

W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., book 5 (volume 2).

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541. The disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.

Encouraged, and deceived, by his easy success at Tunis, the emperor, Charles V., determined, in 1541, to undertake the reduction of Algiers, and to wholly exterminate the freebooters of the north African coast. Before his preparations were completed, "the season unfortunately was far advanced, on which account the Pope entreated, and Doria conjured him not to expose his whole armament to a destruction almost unavoidable on a wild shore during the violence of the autumnal gales. Adhering, however, to his plan with determined obstinacy, he embarked at Porto Venere. … The force … which he had collected … consisted of 20,000 foot and 2,000 horse, mostly veterans, together with 3,000 volunteers. … Besides these there had joined his standard 1,000 soldiers sent by the Order of St. John, and led by 100 of its most valiant knights. Landing near Algiers without opposition, Charles immediately advanced towards the town. To oppose the invaders, Hassan had only 800 Turks, and 5,000 Moors, partly natives of Africa, and partly refugees from Spain. When summoned to surrender he, nevertheless, returned a fierce and haughty answer. But with such a handful of troops, neither his desperate courage nor consummate skill in war could have long resisted forces superior to those which had formerly defeated Barbarossa at the head of 60,000 men." He was speedily relieved from danger, however, by an opportune storm, which burst upon the region during the second day after Charles's debarkation. The Spanish camp was flooded; the soldiers drenched, chilled, sleepless and dispirited. In this condition they were attacked by the Moors at dawn, and narrowly escaped a rout. "But all feeling of this disaster was soon obliterated by a more affecting spectacle. As the tempest continued with unabated violence, the full light of day showed the ships, on which alone their safety depended, driving from their anchors, dashing against one another, and many of them forced on the rocks, or sinking in the waters. In less than an hour, 15 ships of war and 140 transports, with 8,000 men, perished before their eyes; and such of the unhappy sailors as escaped the fury of the sea, were murdered by the Arabs as soon as they reached land." With such ships as he could save, Doria sought shelter behind Cape Matafuz, sending a message to the emperor, advising that he follow with the army to that point. Charles could not do otherwise than act according to the suggestion; but his army suffered horribly in the retreat, which occupied three days. "Many perished by famine, as the whole army subsisted chiefly on roots and berries, or on the flesh of horses, killed for that purpose by the emperor's orders; numbers were drowned in the swollen brooks; and not a few were slain by the enemy." Even after the army had regained the fleet, and was reembarked, it was scattered by a second storm, and several weeks passed before the emperor reached his Spanish dominions, a wiser and a sadder man.

M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., book 6 (volume 2.)

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560. The pirate Dragut and his exploits. Turkish capture of Tripoli. Disastrous Christian attempt to recover the place.

Dragut, or Torghūd, a native of the Caramanian coast, opposite the island of Rhodes, began his career as a Mediterranean corsair some time before the last of the Barbarossas quitted the scene and was advanced by the favor of the Algerine. In 1540 he fell into the hands of one of the Dorias and was bound to the oar as a galley-slave for three years,—which did not sweeten his temper toward the Christian world. In 1543 he was ransomed, and resumed his piracies, with more energy than before. "Dragut's lair was at the island of Jerba [called Gelves, by the Spaniards]. … Not content with the rich spoils of Europe, Dragut took the Spanish outposts in Africa, one by one—Susa, Sfax, Monastir; and finally set forth to conquer 'Africa.' {261} It is not uncommon in Arabic to call a country and its capital by the same name. … 'Africa' meant to the Arabs the province of Carthage or Tunis and its capital, which was not at first Tunis but successively Kayrawan and Mahdiya. Throughout the later middle ages the name 'Africa' is applied by Christian writers to the latter city. … This was the city which Dragut took without a blow in the spring of 1550. Mahdiya was then in an anarchic state, ruled by a council of chiefs, each ready to betray the other, and none owing the smallest allegiance to any king, least of all the despised king of Tunis, Hamid, who had deposed and blinded his father, Hasan, Charles V. 's protégé. One of these chiefs let Dragut and his merry men into the city by night. … So easy a triumph roused the emulation of Christendom. … Don Garcia de Toledo dreamed of outshining the Corsair's glory. His father, the Viceroy of Naples, the Pope, and others, promised their aid, and old Andrea Doria took the command. After much delay and consultation a large body of troops was conveyed to Mahdiya and disembarked on June 28, 1550. Dragut, though aware of the project, was at sea, devastating the Gulf of Genoa, and paying himself in advance for any loss the Christians might inflict in Africa: his nephew Hisar Reis commanded in the city. When Dragut returned, the siege had gone on for a month," but he failed in attempting to raise it and retired to Jerba. Mahdiya was carried by assault on the 8th of September. "Next year, 1551, Dragut's place was with the Ottoman navy, then commanded by Sinan Pasha. … With nearly 150 galleys or galleots, 10,000 soldiers, and numerous siege-guns, Sinan and Dragut sailed out of the Dardanelles—whither bound no Christian could tell. They ravaged, as usual, the Straits of Messina, and then revealed the point of attack by making direct for Malta." But the demonstration made against the strong fortifications of the Knights of St. John was ill-planned and feebly executed; it was easily repelled. To wipe out his defeat, Sinan "sailed straight for Tripoli, some 64 leagues away. Tripoli was the natural antidote to Malta: for Tripoli, too, belonged to the Knights of St. John—much against their will—inasmuch as the Emperor had made their defence of this easternmost Barbary state a condition of their tenure of Malta." But the fortifications of Tripoli were not strong enough to resist the Turkish bombardment, and Gaspard de Villiers, the commandant, was forced to surrender (August 15th), "on terms, as he believed, identical with those which Suleyman granted to the Knights of Rhodes. But Sinan was no Suleyman; moreover, he was in a furious rage with the whole Order. He put the garrison—all save a few—in chains and carried them off to grace his triumph at Stambol. Thus did Tripoli fall once more into the hands of the Moslems. … The misfortunes of the Christians did not end here. Year after year the Ottoman fleet appeared in Italian waters. … Unable as they felt themselves to cope with the Turks at sea, the powers of Southern Europe resolved to strike one more blow on land, and recover Tripoli. A fleet of nearly 100 galleys and ships, gathered from Spain, Genoa, 'the Religion,' the Pope, from all quarters, with the Duke de Medina-Celi at their head, assembled at Messina. … Five times the expedition put to sea; five times was it driven back by contrary winds. At last, on February 10, 1560, it was fairly away for the African coast. Here fresh troubles awaited it. Long delays in crowded vessels had produced their disastrous effects: fevers and scurvy and dysentery were working their terrible ravages among the crews, and 2,000 corpses were flung into the sea. It was impossible to lay siege to Tripoli with a diseased army, and when actually in sight of their object the admirals gave orders to return to Jerba. A sudden descent quickly gave them the command of the beautiful island. … In two months a strong castle was built, with all scientific earthworks, and the admiral prepared to carry home such troops as were not needed for its defence. Unhappily for him, he had lingered too long. … He was about to prepare for departure when news came that the Turkish fleet had been seen at Goza. Instantly all was panic. Valiant gentlemen forgot their valour, forgot their coolness. … Before they could make out of the strait … the dread Corsair [Dragut] himself, and Ochiali, and Piali Pasha were upon them. Then ensued a scene of confusion that baffles description. Despairing of weathering the north side of Jerba the panic-stricken Christians ran their ships ashore and deserted them, never stopping even to set them on fire. … On rowed the Turks; galleys and galleons to the number of 56 fell into their hands; 18,000 Christians bowed down before their scimitars; the beach on that memorable 11th of May, 1560, was a confused medley of stranded ships, helpless prisoners, Turks busy in looting men and galleys—and a hideous heap of mangled bodies. The fleet and the army which had sailed from Messina … were absolutely lost."

S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs.

ALSO IN: W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II., book 4, chapter 1.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565. Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver. Capture of Penon de Velez.

In the spring of 1563 a most determined and formidable attempt was made by Hassem, the dey of Algiers, to drive the Spaniards from Oran and Mazarquiver, which they had held since the African conquests of Cardinal Ximenes. The siege was fierce and desperate; the defence most heroic. The beleaguered garrisons held their ground until a relieving expedition from Spain came in sight, on the 8th of June, when the Moors retreated hastily. In the summer of the next year the Spaniards took the strong island fortress of Penon de Velez, breaking up one more nest of piracy and strengthening their footing on the Barbary coast. In the course of the year following they blocked the mouth of the river Tetuan, which was a place of refuge for the marauders.

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II., book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).