FROM THE EVACUATION OF DACIA BY AURELIAN (ABOUT 274 A.D.) TO THE END OF
THE BARBARIAN RULE (ABOUT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY).
The 'Barbarians'--Brief mention of them by Roumanian
historians--The Goths--Their settlement in Dacia--Defeat by
Theodosius and disappearance--The Huns--Their ferocity--Attila--His
successes--Deserted and overthrown by the Gepidae--His death, and
expulsion of the Huns--The Sarmatians--The Gepidae ally themselves
with the Byzantines--Defeated by the Lombards under Alboin--The
Avari--Settle in Dacia--Are defeated and dispersed by Priscus and
Heraclius--The Bulgari--Their origin and that of the
Slavonians--Their cruelty--Warlike habits--Severe punishment of
criminals--Superstitions--Their 'Chagan,' or chief
rider--Conversion to Christianity--Their chieftains--Improved
habits--Curious superstitions--Career of the Bulgari--Invasion of
the Eastern Empire and defeat by Belisarius--Supreme in Dacia,
Moesia, and Servia--Vicissitudes--Story of Krumus--Daco-Roman
princes--The Bulgarian territories annexed by Basilius to the Greek
Empire--The Ungri, or Hungarians--Their supposed origin--Their
cruelty and ferocity--Hallam's description of them--German account
of their savage mode of warfare--Ravage Europe--Settle in Hungary
and found a kingdom--Are driven over the Carpathians by the
Bulgari--(Note: Story of their contests with the chiefs Gellius,
Gladius, Mariotus, &c,--The anonymous notary of King Bela)--The
Patzinakitai--Scanty records concerning them--The
Wallachs--Controversy regarding their origin--Daco-Roman
descendants--Mediaeval accounts of their origin and character--Anna
Comnena--Bonfinius--AEneas Sylvius--M. Opitz--Their career in the
Danubian territories--Revolt in alliance with the
Bulgari--Foundation of the Wallacho-Bulgarian Empire by Peter,
Asan, and John--The historical _soufflet_--Recognition of the new
empire--Its duration--The Kumani--Their domination--The Teutonic
Knights and Knights of St. John--Interesting correspondence between
King Joannitz and Pope Innocent III.--Temporary conversion of the
Bulgarians to Rome--Downfall of the Wallacho-Bulgarian
Empire--Irruptions and retirement of the Tartars--End of the
barbarian age.
I.
If the reader will imagine a country somewhat larger than the United
Kingdom situated in a part of the European continent which renders it
accessible from almost every side, and can conceive of eight or nine
great hordes of armed savages tens or hundreds of thousands strong, with
many smaller ones, pouring intermittently, and even simultaneously in
some instances, into that devoted territory, and there alternately
burning and plundering or making slaves of each other or of the original
settlers, during a continuous period of more than a thousand years, then
he will have formed some idea of poor Roumania (or perhaps it would be
more correct to say of the territories north and south of the lower
Danube) as it existed between the end of the third and of the thirteenth
centuries.
It is not surprising that some of the historians of Roumania, who have
managed to fill volumes, should have slurred over what really
constitutes half the period of her national existence in a few pages,
nay even in some instances in a few lines; and that they should have
substituted what one writer has called 'brilliant declamatory
evolutions' for the conclusions of careful research. For the last method
sometimes leads to the discovery of discrepancies between standard
authors of fifty or a hundred years in the chronicle of events. For us
the history of the so-called dark ages in that part of Europe is full of
interest, inasmuch as the Danubian plains constituted the highway over
which the barbarians wandered who were the ancestors of a large
proportion of the existing population of Europe; and we have sought, in
the table appended to this work, to bring some kind of order out of the
chaos of events narrated by historians.[109] Beyond this, it is true, we
cannot do much to serve the student of history, and it is a matter of
regret that the character of this work necessitates our treating the
subject with such inconvenient brevity; but we must appeal to the
patience and good nature of our readers whilst we seek to give as much
interest as possible to a necessarily dry and tedious narrative.
For about a century after the withdrawal of the Roman legions, the
_Goths_, a people of whose origin and exploits we have already spoken,
ruled in Trajan's Dacia, except during a brief interval (327
A.D.) when Constantine, having built a bridge across the
Danube at or near Nicopolis on the southern, and Turnu-Magurele on the
northern bank, overran the country and once more incorporated it with
the Empire. This occupation was, however, of short duration. Finding
that he could not maintain his supremacy north of the Danube, and that
the Goths were even settling on the right bank, Constantine is said to
have established Roman colonies south of the Balkans, and, according to
some historians, it was from those settlers that the country has derived
its present name of Roumelia. That the Goths must have founded permanent
settlements in various parts of Dacia is obvious from the traces they
have loft behind them, notably in the neighbourhood of Buseu.[110]
Moreover, in the middle of the century (361 A.D.) they are said
to have embraced Christianity, although we hear shortly afterwards (370
A.D.) that their king Athanaric subjected the Christians to the
most cruel persecutions. At that time they were probably on more
neighbourly terms with the Romans, for when a new enemy, the Huns,
appeared in the east and threatened them with annihilation, many of them
were allowed by the Emperor Valens to cross the Danube and settle
peaceably on the right or southern bank. Shortly afterwards, however, we
find them first defeating and slaying Valens and then fighting in
alliance with the Huns (378) against the Emperor Theodosius, who
attacked them in Dacia. This is the last we hear of the Goths as such,
but a branch, the Gepidae, afterwards rose again and for a considerable
period dominated in Dacia.
[Footnote 109: See Appendix I.]
[Footnote 110: The reader will find most of the chief places named in
the course of this historical sketch indicated on the historical map,
but we have purposely refrained from making repeated references to it,
and even, in many cases, to authorities on history, where that would
interfere unnecessarily with the continuity of the narrative.]
II.
The _Huns_ who drove out the Goths and followed them in the occupation
of the country, are supposed by some to be of Scythian, by others even
of Chinese origin, and Gibbon has very graphically described their first
appearance and movements. 'The numbers,' he says, 'the strength, the
rapid motions, and the implacable cruelty of the Huns were felt, and
dreaded and magnified by the astonished Goths, who beheld their fields
and villages consumed with flames and deluged with indiscriminate
slaughter. To these real terrors were added the surprise and abhorrence
which were excited by the shrill voice, the uncouth gestures, and the
strange deformity of the Huns. These savages of Scythia were compared
(and the picture had some resemblance) to the animals who walked very
awkwardly on two legs, and to the misshapen figures, the Termini, which
were often placed on the bridges of antiquity. They were distinguished
from the rest of the human species by their broad shoulders, flat noses,
and small black eyes deeply buried in the head, and as they were almost
destitute of beards they never enjoyed either the manly graces of youth
or the venerable aspect of age.'[111] These were the beings who
devastated and dominated in Dacia for three-fourths of a century (375 to
about 453 A.D.), and others such as these, we may add, were
still harrying the peacefully disposed population six or seven hundred
years subsequently, when the ultra-barbarian _regime_ was about drawing
to a close.
But the rule of the Huns was not uninterrupted. Shortly after they
obtained possession of the Gothic kingdom in Dacia they were defeated by
the Emperor Theodosius I. (about 378), but from that time until the
reign of their King Attila ('the scourge of God') nothing of importance
is noted in their history. This monarch not only brought the whole of
Dacia under the yoke, but (about 443) he conquered Moesia, and pressed
the Romans so hard that Theodosius II. (408-450), as well as the Eastern
Emperor, were glad to make peace with him, by which he retained the
greater part of his conquests north of the Danube. It is impossible, nor
would it be legitimate here, to follow Attila through his victorious
career. All we need to mention is that when the tide was turning against
him, the vassal tribes, whom he had dragged through Europe as allies,
deserted him, and the Gepidae, a branch of the great Gothic nation,
helped to hasten his downfall; for, revolting under their chief Ardaric,
they not only defeated his army, but became masters of the whole of
Dacia. At the conclusion of the reign of Attila, who died or was
murdered about A.D. 453, the Huns were driven back into Asia,
whence they once more invaded Europe a few years later; but, although we
hear of them casually, in union with other tribes, more than a century
afterwards (about 564), they never recovered their power in Dacia, and
are of no further interest to us in this connection.
[Footnote 111: Vol. iv. pp. 258-262.]
III.
The reader will remember that even in the wars between the Romans and
Dacians other barbarian tribes took part. Of these the Quadi,
Marcomanni, and Sarmatians continued to harass the successors of the
first-named, and even to make irruptions into the Empire. The
_Sarmatians_ especially were very formidable, and from time to time they
settled in Dacia during the occupation of the Goths, giving both them
and the Romans much trouble. They were encountered by more than one
Roman army, and were driven back into and through Dacian territory; but
at length, about A.D. 375, Valentinian defeated them with great
slaughter, and we cease to hear of them in connection with Roumanian
history.
With the _Gepidae_, that branch of the Goths who defeated Attila, it was
otherwise. After the withdrawal of the Huns[112] they took possession of
Northern Dacia, and managed to obtain such a firm hold on the country,
that it was actually known to some of the older historians as 'Gepidia.'
There is, however, nothing of interest in their history. Sometimes they
were at war with their more powerful southern neighbours; anon they
formed alliances with them on advantageous terms, and aided them to keep
other tribes in check. The Roman Empire was now split into its Eastern
and Western divisions, and it was with the Byzantines that the Gepidae
made their treaties. These, however, were capable of rendering them
little effectual service at periods of grave danger, and when (about 550
A.D.) the Lombards, a warlike tribe who are believed to have
migrated southwards from the shores of the Baltic, in combination with
an Asiatic horde, the Avari, made inroads into their territory, the
Gepidae were quite incapable of making head against them. We have said
that the latter nation contracted treaties, offensive and defensive,
with the Eastern Empire, but it must not be supposed that either the
emperors or the barbarians were very constant in their attachments. At
one time we find some particular tribe in alliance with the emperors of
the East, assisting them to keep back new assailants; at another they
entered the armies of the Eastern emperors, to help them in their
attacks upon their Western rivals; then, again, it is two tribes
associated to root out and exterminate a horde in possession; and
shortly afterwards it may be that the tribes who were allied are arrayed
against each other. About the time named, the _Lombards_ and Avari, as
we have said, made inroads into the territories of the Gepidae, the
first-named being under the lead of a brave and fierce leader, Alboin,
and in a very short period (between 550 and 567 A.D.) they
managed not only to defeat the Gepidae, but so completely to break their
power, that some writers speak of them as being annihilated. Then it was
that the Emperor Justinian (527-565), fearing them as opponents, and
desiring them as allies, tempted the Lombards to enter his service; and,
bent upon conquest rather than upon becoming settlers in the land which
they had already acquired, these crossed over the Danube and left their
associates, the Avari, in undisturbed possession. The _Avari_ ruled
intermittently in Dacia from about A.D. 564 to 610-640, when,
venturing to cope with the Byzantine power, they were first encountered
and defeated by Priscus, a Greek general, and later on by the Emperor
Heraclius (610-641), and from that time their nation was gradually
dispersed.
[Footnote 112: Between 453 and 469 A.D. according to different
writers.]
IV.
But now we arrive at a period when there was some little interval in the
successive inroads of barbarians, and a breathing time for the peaceably
disposed inhabitants of Dacia; for the next race of wanderers who
entered upon the fertile plains of the Danube succeeded in holding their
ground almost as undisputed masters for three centuries. Later on, as we
shall find, they founded a second dynasty in combination with the
Wallachs; and, although their rule was troubled by the incursions of
other barbarians, and by wars first with the Byzantines and afterwards
with the Hungarians or Magyars, yet they managed with some intermission
to remain the governing power, and their descendants have ruled in
various localities even down to the present day.
But what makes the history of this tribe, the _Bulgari_, so interesting,
is not so much the domination which they exercised in the Danubian
provinces, as the insight which it gives us into the condition of the
people during the dark ages; and although we must content ourselves with
a brief sketch of their career and a few incidents selected from it, we
can confidently recommend our readers to prosecute the enquiry for
themselves, with the certainty of being repaid for their labour and
research. The origin of the Bulgari, or Bulgarians, like that of most of
the so-called barbarians, is more or less clouded in mystery. According
to some writers they were of Scythian origin, and comprised numerous
tribes, amongst whom the Wallachs, the Croats, and the Moravians are the
best known.[113] Gibbon says[114] that the Bulgarians and Slavonians
were a wild people who dwelt, or rather wandered, on the plains of
Russia, Lithuania, and Poland. They were bold and dexterous archers, who
drank the milk and feasted on the flesh of their indefatigable
horses.[115] Their flocks followed, or rather guided, their movements,
as it was in search of pasture for these that they roamed about from
place to place. They were practised in flight and incapable of fear.
Roesler is of opinion that they were an offshoot of the Huns, and in the
earlier period of their career, he says, they adopted the costume of all
the Ural races, and notably of the Avari. The hair of the head was shorn
off with the exception of a tuft. Their war-standards were horses'
tails; before a battle there was a muster, at which arms and horses were
inspected, and if any defects were discovered, the warrior who was
guilty was at once put to death. The day and hour of combat were fixed
by soothsayers, propitious signs were sought, and war-ditties chanted.
It was a custom to make a drinking-vessel of the skull of some famous
chieftain amongst the enemy when he was killed in battle. (We shall have
a notable example of this presently.) Any freeman or slave who strayed
beyond the boundaries of the territory was killed by the border-guard if
he was detected. Dogs and even human beings were offered as sacrifices.
Their sentences for the expiation of crime were as barbarous as the
people themselves. Noses and ears were cut off as the most ordinary
punishment. Polygamy was practised, and eunuchs protected the harem. The
ruler, who was called the 'Chagan,' had power of life and death over his
subjects. He alone sat at table during his meals; his 'court,' including
even his spouse, squatted around and fed upon the floor. In the seventh
century their religion was a mixture of heathenism and Mohammedanism,
and they were only converted to Christianity by slow degrees after they
had settled on the Danube and come into close contact with the Eastern
Empire.[116] Even then we find (about the middle of the ninth century)
that although the kings embraced Christianity, the great mass of the
people remained unconverted, and even resented the change of religion in
their rulers.
There is much more that is interesting in the customs of the Bulgarians,
especially when they had come under something like a settled government.
The nobles seem to have resembled our 'ealdormen' in the very earliest
phase of our history, and to have exercised considerable influence,
notwithstanding the absolutism of the ruling head. From living only in
tents of skins, a practice still adhered to in the warmer months, they
built wooden huts in winter. They clothed themselves in long robes, and
wore caps which were doffed reverentially in the presence of their
rulers. They fed on millet and on horseflesh, and drank mead and a
liquor extracted from the birch tree. Their punishments continued to be
most barbarous, quartering alive being a common practice. Their
superstitions were interesting. Serpents were 'taboo,' so was a hut
which had been struck by lightning, whilst the howlings of dogs and
wolves were good omens, significant of success or plenty.
We first hear of the Bulgari towards the close of the fifth century when
they were situated near the mouth of the Volga, from whence they moved
into Dacia. Meeting with little opposition and joined by other tribes,
they soon became formidable invaders of the Eastern Empire, and are said
to have carried their arms time after time through Thrace, Epirus,
Thessaly, as far as Peloponnesus in Europe, and into Asia Minor, until
at length they were met by Belisarius, one of the generals of Justinian,
probably about 538-540 A.D., who defeated and drove them back
over the Danube. Meantime they had come under the yoke of the Avari, and
it was not until the middle of the seventh century (about 678-680), when
that warlike tribe had been broken up by Heraclius, that the Bulgari,
under the leadership of a powerful chief Kuvrat, obtained the ascendency
in Dacia. This chieftain formed an alliance with Heraclius, and he and
his successor Asparich succeeded by their prowess in bringing not only
Trajan's Dacia, but also Moesia, and what is now Servia, under the
Bulgarian rule, and in founding a State which subsisted to the
beginning of the eleventh century.
Of the condition of the people under this _regime_ we have already
spoken, and there is too much similarity between its incidents and those
which preceded and followed, to justify our dwelling upon it at any
length. It consists of a series of victories over, or defeats by, the
Byzantine emperors. At one time we find the Bulgarians losing battle
after battle and their power on the wane; then we hear of a Bulgarian
chief going to Constantinople, embracing Christianity, and forming a
marriage alliance with a niece of the empress (Irene, 780-802). Next a
powerful and savage king, Krum or Krumus, comes to the throne (probably
reigning 807 to 820 A.D.), and commences hostilities against
the Emperor Nicephorus (802-811). Having defeated and slain him, he is
said to have illustrated the custom already referred to by making a
goblet of his skull. The succeeding emperor (Michael, 811-813) fared
little better, having suffered an ignominious defeat at the hands of
Krum, who pressed forward to the very gates of Constantinople. Thence,
after dictating terms of peace, he withdrew into his own territories,
taking with him, it is said, 50,000 Daco-Romans who had been made slaves
by the Byzantines, and settling them on the north bank of the Danube.
Krum died A.D. 820 or thereabouts.
Another feature in the history of the country, to which we shall refer
more fully hereafter, is the part taken by the dominant race for the
time being in the obstruction or promotion of Christianity, and in the
schism in the Catholic Church. At first we hear of little else than
persecution of Christians, and the successor of Krum is said to have
martyred one Bishop Emanuel, who was preaching the Gospel in his
dominions. Other Bulgarian chiefs or kings, however, courted the favour
of the Christian emperors and adopted their creed, until the country was
annexed to the Greek Empire in 1014 A.D.
A word or two more concerning the prominent events preceding the first
fall of the Bulgarians. About the end of the ninth century the
descendants of the Daco-Romans, recovering from the repeated blows they
had received by the successive barbarian irruptions and conquests, are
said once more to have rallied to power; and several chiefs or kings are
believed to have been of Daco-Roman origin. Of these Simeon (about 887),
Peter (? A.D.), and Samuel (about 976 A.D.), are
conspicuous. The first-named we find at war, first with the Grecian
Emperor Leo (893 A.D.), whom he defeated; then with the same
ruler and his allies the Ungri, under Arpad, their king. Finding himself
hard pressed, Simeon made peace with Leo, and turned his arms against
the Ungri, whom he defeated with great bloodshed and drove out of his
territories. (To the Ungri and their career we shall return presently.)
These feuds continued for a long period, and about 970 A.D. the
Bulgarians crossed the Balkans, but were beaten by the Greeks, whilst
two or three years afterwards the Greek emperor (or rather one of them,
for there were several pretenders to the throne), John Zimisces (? 972),
attacked Marcianopolis, the Bulgarian capital, and took the king, Boris,
prisoner. Before the end of the century another Bulgarian king, Simeon,
had fought the Greeks with varying success, but ultimately the Emperor
Basilius II. (1014 A.D.) completely annihilated the Bulgarian
army, and annexed the whole country as a province of the Greek Empire.
Thus ended the first rule of the Bulgarians.
[Footnote 113: Le Sage, Table 8.]
[Footnote 114: Gibbon, vol. vii. p. 104.]
[Footnote 115: This character is by some writers given to the Wallachs
or Roumanians, and Bonfinius (Book IV.) says that their name is derived
from certain Greek words indicating their skill in archery.]
[Footnote 116: Roesler, p. 234 _et seq._ It is necessary to add that
Roesler derives much of his information from Turkish sources. (Appendix,
pp. 359-361.) According to one writer, Abu-Ali-Ahmed Ben Omar Ibn-Dasta,
the _settled_ Bulgarians were an agricultural people cultivating
cereals, in whose villages were mosques, elementary schools, &c. Many,
however, were heathens, who prostrated themselves whenever they met an
acquaintance.]
V.
Of all the tribes or hordes of the East who made the devoted plains of
the Danube their highway into Europe, there were none who have earned a
character so notorious for rapine and cruelty as the _Ungri_, or
Hungarians. Their origin is doubtful in the extreme, but it is probable
that they were a Turanian race, and Roesler has found them an aboriginal
home in Ugria, a country situated eastward of the Ural mountains and the
river Obi.[117] Their savage nature, which long survived their advent
into Europe, has been graphically described by several writers.
Roesler, who has carefully studied their early history, says that they
were mare-milking nomads living in tents, that they ate the half-raw
meat of game or fish without knives. Mare's milk appears to have been
what we may call their temperance beverage; whilst stronger drinks were
the blood of wild animals or of their enemies on the field of battle;
and the hearts of the latter were considered a sovereign remedy for
diseases.[118] Our own Hallam, in describing their appearance and
ravages in Europe, calls them a 'Tartarian tribe' who moved forward in
great numbers as a vast wave. Their ferocity, he says, was untamed; they
fought with cavalry and light armour, trusting to their showers of
arrows, against which the swords and lances of the European armies could
not avail. 'The memory of Attila,' he adds, 'was renewed in the
devastations of these savages, who, if they were not his compatriots,
resembled them both in countenance and customs.'[119]
But the nation who suffered the most severely from their irruptions, and
whose history reflects their ferocity the most faithfully, were the
Germans. Fortresses were erected to check their inroads, but 'exultingly
and with scorn these wild horsemen brushed past them, and as though they
were in pursuit of game they picked off the peasant at the plough, or
the soldier mounting guard upon the walls. Men, women, and children were
captured wherever they were found; were coupled by the hair of their
heads and driven in herds, like cattle, into Hungary. If a regular army
moved out against them, they dispersed like the winds of heaven, and the
joyful cry went up, "God be praised, they are gone;" but soon they
reappeared to harass the retreating soldiery. The horrors of desolation
and rapine were the condition most congenial to them; in these they
revelled and rejoiced; and most happy were they when they could anoint
their beards with German blood, or, casting their firebrands into the
houses of God, could witness the devouring flames as they rose up into
the skies.'[120]
Although in after times the Hungarians claimed the suzerainty over part
or the whole of Wallachia (and we shall have occasion hereafter to refer
to their relations with that country), their domination during the ninth
and tenth centuries was of a very partial and transient character. They
probably moved westward from the Ukraine at the beginning of the ninth
century, and between the years 839 and 860 they were actively aggressive
in Eastern Wallachia. They are said to have attacked Constantine, the
Christian missionary, on his way through the district they occupied, but
his venerable mien prevented them from doing him any injury. He is said
not even to have allowed their cries to disturb him during prayer, in
which he was engaged when they made their appearance. Towards the close
of the century, as we have already said, they sustained a defeat at the
hands of the Bulgarians, when, under their chief Arpad, they had formed
an alliance with the Emperor Leo, who is said to have made peace with
the enemy and left them in the lurch. After this they were driven into
the Carpathians, A.D. 894, and, having first overrun the
greater part of Transylvania, they commenced those aggressions into
Germany, France, and Italy, which for a considerable period rendered
them the terror of all Europe. At the end of the tenth century, having
met with severe reverses and been compelled to withdraw into Hungary,
they at length settled down under an established government. The first
king was undoubtedly Stephen (997 or 1008 A.D.), and they
annexed Transylvania, which up to that time had been a debatable
territory, either about 1002 according to some writers, or, as others
affirm, not until the time of Ladislaus the Holy (1078-1095
A.D.).[121]
[Footnote 117: Roesler, p. 156 _et seq._]
[Footnote 118: Roesler, p. 164 _et seq._]
[Footnote 119: Vol. i. p. 20. Hallam says, in a note _loc. cit._: 'In
Italy they inspired such terror that a mass was composed especially
deprecating this calamity, "Ab Ungarorum nos defendas jaculis."']
[Footnote 120: E. Duller, _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes_, p. 108.
Leipzig: Wigand. 1840.]
[Footnote 121: During their passage across the Carpathians the
Hungarians are said to have encountered and reduced to submission a
number of petty chiefs and tribes, believed by certain writers to have
been the descendants of Daco-Romans who had settled in those mountains
many centuries previously. Amongst them 'Dukes' Gellius or Julius,
Claudius, and Mariotus are mentioned. The chronicler of these events is
known as the 'Anonymous Notary of King Bela' of Hungary, and his
narrative is adopted by those modern writers who hold the view that the
early princes of Wallachia descended from the Carpathians, whilst other
writers, and notably Roesler, who denies that theory, throw discredit
upon the whole story, and consider the writings of the 'anonymous
notary' a fabrication. The bias exhibited by the different historians
makes it impossible to arrive at any just conclusion on the subject.]
VI.
In studying the historical records of this time, the reader will
frequently encounter the names of two tribes which will cause him
considerable perplexity, namely, the _Patzinakitai_,[122] as they were
called by the Greeks, and the _Wallachs_, who were variously called
'Vlaci,' 'Blaci,' 'Valachi,' 'Olachi,' &c. Of the former little can and
need be said. They are sometimes called Romans; were dominant in certain
parts of the country in the tenth, and probably also the eleventh,
century; assisted the Bulgari to drive the Hungarians over the
Carpathians, and were even strong enough to make war upon the Eastern
Empire about the end of the eleventh century. About that time
ineffectual attempts were made to christianise them, and the last we
hear of them is at the close of the thirteenth century, when they were
associated with the Wallachs in the Carpathians, and probably gave their
name to a district in which they were settled. They are believed, later
on, to have migrated into Hungary, and cease to be named as a distinct
people.
Concerning the Wallachs, however, who have played a most important part
in Roumanian history, a good deal is known, but much is still obscure
and the subject of heated controversy. First as to their origin. Some
writers believe them to have been a branch of the Slaves; others think
they were the Daco-Roman colonists of Moesia, who, joining the Slaves,
crossed the Danube with them, and that subsequently the fused races were
known as Wallachs, who gradually spread themselves northward to the
Carpathians. Other historians are silent about them until the foundation
of the 'Wallacho-Bulgarian Empire,' and then they simply mention that
the two races joined for the purpose of gaining their
independence.[123] There are, however, certain historians of the middle
agea who accord to them a direct Roman origin and say they were the
descendants of the Roman colonists who managed to retain their language
and their hold upon the soil throughout the dark ages, and in spite of
the irruptions and passage of the barbarian tribes of the north and
east. This is now the view generally accepted.
As we have freely quoted the opinions of modern writers, many of whom,
along with the authorities on which their views are based, are entirely
unknown to the bulk of our readers, it is only fair that they should be
made acquainted with the views of well-known historians who flourished
nearer the time of which we are writing.
Anna Comnena says (between 1081 and 1118 A.D.): 'The Emperor
Alexius commanded Caesar Nicephorus to enlist as many soldiers as
possible by conscription; but not veterans; new men who had not yet been
in campaigns. He instructed him as to the tribes from which he was to
select his recruits, namely, from the Bulgarians and from amongst those
youths who had become hardened by a pastoral life; who possess no
settled habitations, but wander about from place to place; those who, in
the vulgar tongue, are called "Wallachs" ("Blachos").'
Bonfinius enters into details of their history. He tells how Trajan
conquered the Dacians; how the province was evacuated; but that the
colonists had multiplied to such an extent that the repeated incursions
of barbarians failed to exterminate them; and he adds that they adhere
so tenaciously to their language that one would imagine they had fought
for that rather than for their lives. 'Who would not be astonished,' he
says. 'when he considers the deluges of Sarmatians and Goths, the
irruptions of Huns, Vandals, and Gepidae, the incursions of Germans and
Lombards, to find that traces of the Latin tongue should be met with
amongst the Dacians and Getae, whom we now call Wallachs, because they
are such good marksmen? The Roumanians are descended from the legions
and colonists who were led into Dacia by Trajan and other emperors: they
were called Wallachs from Pius of Flaccus (after a German
pronunciation), but by us, because they are such good marksmen.'
AEneas Sylvius (Pope Pius II., 1458) is still more explicit. In a few
pithy sentences he gives the geography of Wallachia and Transylvania;
the history of Dacia from the time of the Persian and Greek wars to the
Roman conquest; the fall of the colony; the derivation of the name from
Flaccus; and then he adds: 'The people even now speak the Roman
language, but so mutilated that an Italian can hardly understand them.'
And not only did learned writers recognise the descent of the Wallachs
from the old Roman colonists, but crowned heads referred to it in their
communications with the Bulgarian chiefs and with one another, as we
shall see presently. Lauriani, from whose work we have made these
extracts, says that the Hungarian writers were nearly always silent on
the subject, or spoke of it with the utmost bitterness. He, however,
quotes two who, in treating of the various nationalities, admit that
Moldavia and Wallachia contain the descendants of the Roman colonists
who speak a perverted Latin. One of them gives an extract from a poem by
Martin Opitz (1621), who describes the national dance of Wallachia, the
Hora, or 'Chora' as he calls it. After speaking of the vicissitudes
through which the people have passed, he says of their language that the
Roman tongue is still in vogue; and of the people who are dancing he
says: 'The men, who are almost made (? clothed) upon the Roman model,
are bad, but witty, think much and say little.'[124]
We have already made a brief reference to the influence of the barbarian
rule upon the language and habits of the modern Roumanians, and it is
very interesting to find that in the seventeenth century, when Opitz
lived, this fact had already been noticed. Although it concerns chiefly
the national sentiment of the Roumanians of to-day and is no doubt very
fascinating for them, the enquiry still presents some interesting
problems for readers of every nationality.
[Footnote 122: Modern French and German writers called them
Petschenigues and Petschenegen.]
[Footnote 123: For further details concerning the Patzinakitai and
Wallachs the student must consult the pages of Roesler, Pic, Engel,
Lauriani, &c.]
[Footnote 124:
'Die Menschen, die noch jetzt fast roemisch Muster tragen,
Zwar schlecht, doch witzig sind, viel denken, wenig sagen.'
]
VII.
As the reader is already aware, the first domination of the Bulgarians
in the Danubian provinces was followed by that of the Eastern Empire
after the victories of Basilius at the commencement of the eleventh
century, and as a change of rulers in those days usually meant a change
of oppressors, it is not surprising to find, about a century and a half
later, that all the populations were ready for revolt. Amongst these,
the most numerous and influential were still the conquered Bulgarians
and the Wallachs. The Wallachs are first distinctly mentioned in the
time of Basilius, in whose armies they fought as allies or mercenaries.
Towards the end of the eleventh century they had spread widely; for
mention is made of them as having settled all over the Balkan peninsula
as far as Macedonia in the south, in Wallachia in the north, and in
Moldavia, and perhaps even Bessarabia, in the north-east.[125] That is
to say, they had either spread into those countries, or their ancestors
had been there from the Daco-Roman period, and, having become
amalgamated with successive tribes of barbarians, were now once more the
dominant race. They must always have been great warriors, for we find
them at one time making irruptions on their own account into the
neighbouring territories, at others in alliance with the Eastern
emperors against the Bulgari or the Hungarians; or, associated with
neighbouring tribes, warring against the last-named ruthless invaders.
And when, from about 1180 to 1200, the Greek power was approaching its
dissolution, the people of the Danubian provinces were ripe for
insurrection, and there were not wanting brave leaders to assist them
in striking the blow for their independence. From the conflicting
accounts of historians, neither the names nor number of those leaders,
nor yet the precise events which led to the establishment of the new
empire, are ascertainable with exactitude. Either there were two
Wallachian brothers, Peter and Asan, to whom a near relative of the
Greek emperor Isaac Angelos (1185-1195) treacherously allied himself, or
three brothers, Peter, Asan, and John. The origin of the revolt is
undoubted; it arose from the levying of what the people deemed an unjust
tax upon them, and probably the refusal of the emperor to admit them
into his army as paid mercenaries, as in the case of other tribes. In
order to obtain redress for these grievances, an embassy, comprising the
two brothers Peter and Asan, went to Constantinople. They were admitted
to the emperor's presence, but their requests were refused, and one of
the brothers, having displayed too much warmth on the occasion, received
a box on the ear, which may be said to have laid the foundation of the
Wallacho-Bulgarian Empire, and expedited the fall of the Greek dynasty.
At first the revolt was unsuccessful, and the Wallachs and Bulgarians in
alliance were obliged to retreat across the Danube (1187); but soon
returning with a powerful army, in which a new tribe, the Kumani, were
also represented, they succeeded in inflicting a defeat upon the Emperor
Isaac (about 1193), who narrowly escaped with his life. Pressing on to
Adrianople, the allies threatened to overwhelm the Eastern Empire, and
the Emperor Alexius Comnenus was only too glad to conclude a peace with
them (about 1199) and to recognise their independence.
[Footnote 125: Pic (p. 64) says the Roumanian Wallachs were first
referred to in 970, and (p. 113) first mentioned north of the Danube in
1222.]
VIII.
The _Wallacho-Bulgarian_ Empire lasted, according to different authors,
from sixty to one hundred years, and contemporaneously with it the
_Kumani_ were also dominant in part of ancient Dacia; indeed, according
to some writers, Trajan's Dacia was called the land of the Kumani. The
information concerning the latter is very scanty. One writer says that
as the 'Uzi' they were found on the banks of the Danube at the end of
the eleventh century; others say they entered Moldo-Wallachia about
1046. About 1089 they are spoken of as in Transylvania, and the period
of their domination is variously stated as between these dates and
1220-1246. They were probably converted to Christianity about 1220-1223.
About that time the tribe was broken up, and part of them wandered into
Hungary, where they are said to have been guilty of great cruelties, and
to have subsisted down to the fifteenth century.
During the same period also (1200) the order of _Teutonic Knights_ had
lands allotted to them in Transylvania by Andreas II. of Hungary, as
well as in part of Wallachia, over which he claimed the sovereignty; but
they sought to free themselves from his control, and the gift was soon
withdrawn, and in 1224 they were compelled to leave the territory over
which they had exercised jurisdiction. About 1247--1250 the _Knights of
St. John_ also enjoyed a brief authority in some parts of Transylvania
and Wallachia.
The most interesting incident, of which the account has been handed down
to us, in the Wallacho-Bulgarian _regime_ was the negotiation between
King Joannitz, one of the first rulers (to whom reference has already
been made), and Pope Innocent III. (1198-1216).
Lauriani published the whole correspondence, which is so interesting
that a brief epitome of it will not be out of place here. It not only
throws light upon the historical events of the period, but also gives us
a glimpse of the proceedings connected with the schism in the Catholic
Church. It is only necessary to premise that in the separation between
the Roman and Greek Catholics which took place in the latter half of the
ninth century, the Danubian provinces followed the eastern section, that
the union was complete under Basilius, but that, when the brothers Asan
shook off the Byzantine yoke, there was a national feeling of antagonism
in religion arising out of the political rupture. Of this Innocent took
advantage, and in sending a nuncio to Joannitz he wrote him that God had
seen the humility with which he had deported himself towards the Roman
Church, and in the turmoil and dangers of warfare He had not alone
mightily protected him, but also in his mercy had greatly enlarged him
(_dilatavit_). 'We, however,' he said, 'when we heard that thy
forefathers sprang from the noble city of Rome, and that thou didst not
only inherit the nobility of their race, but also true humility towards
the Apostolic chair, had contemplated ere this to address thee in
writing as well as by word of mouth through our nuncios, but the cares
of the Church have prevented us hitherto from carrying out our design.'
He then goes on to tell him that he has sent him 'our beloved son
Dominicus,' a Greek archpriest of Brundus, and he commends his nuncio to
Joannitz, requiring that he should receive him with humility, treat him
kindly, and through him communicate his further submission more
explicitly. Should he (the Pope) be satisfied concerning his intentions
and submission, he proposes to send him higher nuncios, or rather
legates, to assure him and his (subjects) in the true faith.'
Joannitz evidently did not at first receive or treat the holy emissary
quite so deferentially as he might have done; but at length he answers,
beginning his epistle as follows:--'To the venerable and most holy
Father, highest priest, I, Johannes, Emperor of the Wallachs and
Bulgarians, send thee joy and health.'[126] He acknowledges the letter,
which he says is dearer to him than gold or any jewels, and thanks God
for having remembered him, his race, and the Fatherland from which they
originated.
Then he recites what the Holy Father said about his benevolent
intentions, and adds that he, too, had attempted once, twice, and indeed
three times to communicate with him, but was debarred from doing so by
the number of his enemies; but now, knowing what are the Holy Father's
feelings towards him, he sends, along with the nuncio whom the Pope had
commissioned, also 'our pious and trusty priest Blasius,' to convey his
thanks, friendship, and service to him, as his Holy Father and highest
priest. Then, with an eye to business (which, by the way, pervades the
whole correspondence), he adds that as by his sacred writing his
Holiness had asked him to explain what he desired from the Holy Roman
Church (which, however, was not the case), his Imperial Majesty desires
of the Apostolic chair that he and his subjects should be fortified as
children in the bosom of the Mother Church, and particularly he asks
from the Roman Church, his mother, the crown and honour which his
forefathers the old emperors received. 'One was Peter, another Samuel,
and others, who preceded us in the government.' If his Holiness will do
this, his every desire in regard to the demeanour of his Empire towards
the Church shall be fulfilled.
'But,' he adds, rather significantly, 'you must not be surprised that
your nuncio did not come back sooner, for we suspected him. Many persons
have come and tried to mislead us, but we were proof against their
machinations.' (False prophets he means.) 'But in this case, however,
the praetext' (white robe) 'was convincing proof, and we were satisfied.'
(But he was _not_ satisfied.) 'But, most Holy Father, if it please thee,
please send us the higher nuncios, and send this one with them, and then
we shall be convinced that both the first and the second mission were
from thee. May the Lord grant thee a long life!'
Then follows another letter from the Pope, which might have been drawn
up by a modern conveyancer. It recites the whole of the previous
correspondence, and, referring to Joannitz's request for a crown, his
Holiness says he has had the registers carefully searched, and finds
that it is true many kings were crowned, and, moreover, that in the time
of his predecessor, Pope Nicolas, the King of the Bulgarians, who had
often sought his advice, had been baptized with his whole nation.
Afterwards, he says, at the request of Michael of Bulgaria, Pope Adrian
sent a subdeacon and some priests, but, in consequence of the bribes and
promises of the Greeks, the Bulgarians cast them out and took Greek
priests in their stead. In consequence of this 'light behaviour,'
therefore, he could not see his way clear to send any of his brothers
the cardinals. Still he had decided to send his chaplain Johannes as a
nuncio of the Apostolic chair, and, commending him to his good offices
(in the usual terms), he wished him to understand that he was fully
empowered to improve everything of a spiritual character in the realm.
He also sent by him a robe (_pallium_) for the archbishop of his
country, and a bull announcing the form and nature of the investiture.
In fact this nuncio was authorised to ordain bishops and priests, and
generally to substitute the Roman Catholic for the Greek faith. As to
the crown there seems still to have been a hitch. The nuncio was to look
up the older books and documents and learn all about the ancient manner
of proceeding, so that 'we [the Pope] may with greater celerity make the
needful arrangements.' And he bids him warn his 'nobles' also to treat
the nuncio with proper deference.
Joannitz did his utmost to comply with the Papal behest. An
archbishopric and two bishoprics were founded, and the 'Golden Bull' was
promulgated, in which it was announced that Joannitz intended to receive
his crown and investiture at the hands of the Universal Priest, Innocent
III., and that certain ecclesiastical functionaries (naming them) had
been established by the Church of Rome, and thereby received his
(Joannitz's) sanction, which had previously been accorded to them by his
ancestors.[127] He also sent presents to the Pope as a token of
submission; and all these matters having been duly weighed and
considered by his Holiness, he at length nominated Joannitz King of the
Wallachs and Bulgarians, and sent him the much-coveted crown and sceptre
by the hands of Leo, a cardinal of the Order of the Holy Cross, &c.,
who was commissioned on his behalf to perform the ceremony of
coronation. Lauriani concludes the correspondence and narrative by
saying that 'this Empire of the Roumanians flourished from the year of
our Lord 1186, in which it was restored by the brothers Peter and Asan,
under the best and bravest kings of the family of Asanidae, until the
year 1285, when it was disturbed, but not destroyed, by the inroads of
the Tartars. After the Turks had begun to make irruptions into the
European provinces, in the fourteenth century, it was brought under the
yoke by the Sultan Bajazet towards the close of that century, and wholly
annihilated in the year 1392.'
Down to this period (the middle of the fourteenth century) we have been
necessarily compelled to speak loosely of the territories which were
overrun and held by the various barbarian races, for there is no clear
information concerning the limits of their occupation; but henceforward
our record will deal chiefly with Roumania as at present constituted.
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 fourteenth 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.
[Footnote 126: He calls himself 'Calojohannes Imperator Blacorum et
Bulgarorum,' which Lauriani translates 'Kaiser der _Romaenen_ und
Bulgaren,' Emperor of the Roumanians, &c. In this and the preceding
letter the reader has illustrations of the bias which weakens the
evidence of alleged facts in Roumanian history. Those writers who are
unwilling to concede Roman descent to the people make no mention of such
expressions as that used by Innocent concerning their ancestry, whilst
the patriotic native historians use license in translation in order to
improve their position.]
[Footnote 127: In the Bull they are called 'Imperatores totius
Bulgariae,' which Lauriani (p. 56) unfairly translates 'Die Kaiser von
ganz Bulgarien und Romaenien' (Emperors of all Bulgaria _and
Roumania!_).]