there were other lands within the former dominions of the Eastern
Empire which were held by Venetian lords, as vassals either of the
republic or of the Empire of Romania. It would be endless to trace out
the revolutions of every Ægæan island; but one among the few which
claim our notice became the seat of a dynasty which proved, next to the
Venetian commonwealth itself, the most long-lived Latin power in the
Greek world. ♦The Duchy of Naxos.♦ This is the duchy variously known as
that of _Naxos_, of the _Dôdekannêsos_, and of the _Archipelago_, the
barbarous name given to the Ægæan or _White Sea_.[34] ♦1207. | 1566.♦
Founded in the early years of Latin settlement by the Venetian Marco
Sanudo, the island duchy lived on as a Latin state, commonly as a
vassal or tributary state of some greater power, till the last half of
the sixteenth century. ♦Annexed by the Turk, 1579. | 1617.♦ Shorn of
many of its islands by its Ottoman overlord, granted afresh to a Jewish
duke, it passed thirteen years later under the immediate dominion of
the Sultan. Most of the _Kyklades_ were either parts of this duchy or
fiefs held of it by other Venetian families. All came into the hands of
the Turk; but some of the very smallest remained merely tributary, and
not fully annexed, into the seventeenth century.
* * * * *
♦Settlements of Genoa and of Genoese citizens.♦
The year which saw the Naxian duchy pass from Latin to Hebrew hands saw
the fall of the most remarkable of the Genoese settlements in the Greek
lands. These settlements, like those of Venice, formed two classes,
those which were possessions of the Genoese commonwealth itself and
those which came into the hands of Genoese citizens. ♦1304.♦ Genoa
had no share in the fourth Crusade; she had therefore no share in the
division of the Empire, though, after the restoration of Byzantine
rule, her colony of _Galata_ made her almost a sharer in the capital
of the Empire. ♦Possessions of Genoa on the Euxine, 1461.♦ But the
seat of direct Genoese dominion in the East was not the Ægæan but the
Euxine. On the southern coast of that sea the republic held _Amastris_
and _Amisos_, and in the Tauric Chersonêsos was her great colony of
_Kaffa_. ♦1475.♦ The Euxine dominion of Genoa came to an end during the
later half of the fifteenth century; but it outlived the Empires both
of Constantinople and of Trebizond.
The Ægæan dominion of the citizens of Genoa was longer lived than the
Euxine dominion of Genoa herself. ♦Lesbos. 1354-1462.♦ The family of
Gattilusio received _Lesbos_ as an Imperial fief in the fourteenth
century, and kept it till after the fall of Constantinople. But the
most remarkable Genoese settlement in the Ægæan was that of _Chios_.
♦The Zaccaria at Chios. 1304-1346. | The Maona. 1346-1566.♦ First held
by princes of the Genoese house of Zaccaria, the island, with some of
its neighbours, passed into the hands of a Genoese commercial company
or _Maona_, a body somewhat like our own East India Company. ♦1566.♦
_Samos_, _Kôs_, and _Phôkaia_ on the mainland, came at different times
under their power, and Chios did not fall under the Ottoman yoke till
the same year as the duchy of Naxos.
* * * * *
One more insular dominion remains, chiefly famous as the possession,
not indeed of a commonwealth, but of an order. ♦Revolutions of Rhodes.♦
In a few years of the thirteenth century the island of _Rhodes_ passed
through all possible revolutions. ♦1233.♦ In the first moment of the
Latin conquest, it became an independent Greek principality, like
Epeiros and Trebizond. ♦1246.♦ Then it admitted the overlordship of the
Nicene Emperors. ♦1249.♦ Seized by Genoa, it was presently won back to
the Empire, till seventy years later it was again seized by the Knights
of Saint John. ♦Establishment of the Knights, 1310. | 1315.♦ From
Rhodes as a centre, the order established its dominion over _Kôs_ and
some other islands, and on some points of the Asiatic coast, especially
their famous fortress of _Halikarnassos_. ♦1480. | 1522.♦ They beat
back Mahomet the Conqueror, but they yielded to Suleiman the Lawgiver
forty years later. ♦Their removal to Malta, 1530.♦ Banished from
Rhodes, the order received _Malta_ from Charles the Fifth as a fief of
his Sicilian kingdom. We are thus brought back to the island which had
been lost to the Eastern Empire for seven hundred years. ♦1566.♦ The
knights in their new home beat back their former conqueror Suleiman,
and kept their island till the times of confusion. ♦Revolutions of
Malta. | 1814.♦ Held by France, held by England, held, nominally at
least, by its own Sicilian overlord, this fragment of the Empire of
Leo and of the kingdom of Roger finally passed at the peace under the
acknowledged rule of England.
§ 5. _The Principalities of the Greek Mainland._
The Greek possessions of Venice, of Genoa, and of the Knights of Saint
John, consisted mainly of islands and detached points of coast. The
Venetian conquest of Peloponnêsos was the only exception on a great
scale. In this they are distinguished from the several powers, Greek
and Frank, which arose on the Greek mainland. We have already heard,
and we shall hear again, of the Greek despotat of Epeiros, which for
a moment grew into an Empire of Thessalonikê. Among the Latin powers
two rose to European importance. ♦Duchy of Athens. | Principality of
Achaia.♦ These are the _duchy of Athens_ in central Greece—in _Hellas_,
according to the Byzantine nomenclature—and the principality of
_Achaia_ or _Môraia_ in Peloponnêsos. ♦Use of the name Môraia.♦ This
last name, of uncertain origin,[35] has come, in its Italian shape,
to be a modern name of the peninsula itself. But the name of _Môraia_
seems strictly to belong to the domain lands of the principality, and
never to go beyond the bounds of the principality, which at no time
took in the whole of Peloponnêsos.
Both these powers were founded in the first days of the Latin conquest,
and the Turk did not finally annex the territories of either till after
the fall of Constantinople. But while the Athenian duchy lived on to
become itself the prize of Mahomet the Conqueror, the lands of the
Achaian principality had already gone back into Greek hands. ♦Lordship
of Athens. 1204-1205.♦ The lordship of Athens, founded by Otho de la
Roche, was first a fief of the kingdom of Thessalonikê, then of the
Empire of Romania. ♦The Duchy.♦ But it was by the grant of Saint Lewis
of France that the title of _Great Lord_[36] was exchanged for that of
_Duke_. ♦1260. | The Catalan Conquest, 1311.♦ The duchy fell into the
hands of the Catalan Great Company, who in central Greece grew from
mere ravagers into territorial occupiers. ♦The Sicilian Dukes.♦ They
brought with them the Thessalian land of _Neopatra_, and transferred
the nominal title of _Duke of Athens and Neopatra_ to princes of the
Sicilian branch of the House of Aragon. Thus the two claimants of the
Sicilian crown were brought face to face on old Greek ground. ♦Dukes
of the house of Acciauoli.♦ The duchy next passed to the Florentine
house of Acciauoli, which already held Corinth, Megara, Sikyôn, and the
greater part of Argolis. But their Peloponnesian dominion passed to
the Byzantine lords of the peninsula, and Neopatra fell into the hands
of the Turk. ♦1390.♦ The Athenian duchy itself, taking in Attica and
Boiôtia, lived on, the vassal in turn of the Angevin king at Naples, of
the Greek despot of Peloponnêsos, and of the Ottoman Sultan. ♦Ottoman
conquest. 1456-1460. | 1466. | 1687.♦ Annexed at last to the Ottoman
dominions, Athens remained in bondage till our own day, save only two
momentary occupations by Venice, one soon after the first conquest, the
other in the great war of Morosini.
* * * * *
♦Salôna and Bodonitza. The Principality of Achaia.♦
The smaller principalities of _Salôna_ and _Bodonitza_ play their part
in the history of the Athenian duchy; but we turn to the chief Latin
power of Peloponnêsos, the principality of Achaia. The shiftings of its
dynasties and feudal relations are endless; its geographical history is
simpler. The peninsula was, at the time of the Latin conquest, already
beginning to fall away from the Empire. ♦1205.♦ King Boniface of
Thessalonikê had to win the land from its Greek lord Leôn Sgouros. The
princes of the house of Champlitte and Villehardouin were his vassals.
They had to struggle with the Venetian settlement in Messênia, and with
the Greek despot of Epeiros, who, oddly enough, held Corinth, Argos,
and Nauplia. ♦1210-1212.♦ These last towns were won by the Latins, and
became an Achaian fief in the hands of Otho of Athens. ♦Its greatest
extent. 1248.♦ Before the end of half a century, the conquest of the
whole peninsula, save the Venetian possessions, was completed by the
taking of _Monembasia_. Things looked as if, now that the Latin power
was waning at Constantinople, a stronger Latin power had arisen in
Peloponnêsos. A crowd of Greek lands, Zakynthos, Naxos, Euboia, Athens,
even Epeiros and Thessalonikê, acknowledged at one time or another the
supremacy of Achaia. But Latin Achaia, like Latin Constantinople, had
to yield to revived Greek energy. ♦Recovery of lands in Peloponnêsos
by the Empire 1262.♦ The Empire won back the three Lacedæmonian
fortresses,[37] and presently made _Kalabryta_ in northern Arkadia a
Greek outpost. ♦1263.♦ Here the Greek advance stopped for a while.
♦Angevin overlordship. 1278.♦
Before the end of the century the Frank principality lost its
independence. It passed into vassalage to the Angevin crown, and
was held, sometimes by the Neapolitan kings themselves, sometimes
by princes of their house—some of them nominal Emperors of
Romania—sometimes by princes of Savoy, who carried the Achaian name
into Northern Italy.[38] ♦Dismemberment of the principality. 1337.♦
In the course of the fourteenth century the principality crumbled
away. ♦1356.♦ _Patras_ became an ecclesiastical principality under the
overlordship of the Pope of the Old Rome. Argos and its port became
a separate lordship. ♦1358.♦ Both of these passed for a longer or a
shorter time under the power of Venice. Corinth and the north-east
corner of the peninsula passed to the Acciauoli. ♦Byzantine advance.
1348-1383.♦ Meantime the Byzantine province grew. For some while,
under despots of the house of Kantakouzênos, it might almost pass for
an independent Greek state. ♦1381. | 1387. | 1442.♦ Notwithstanding
the inroads of the Navarrese, the second Spanish invaders of Greece,
and the first appearance of the Ottoman, the Greek power advanced,
till it took in all Peloponnêsos save the Venetian towns. ♦Conquests
of Constantine Palaiologos.♦ The last Constantine even appeared as a
conqueror at Athens and in central Greece. ♦1458-1460.♦ Then came
more Ottoman inroads, dismemberment, Albanian colonization, final
annexation by the Turk. ♦Successive Turkish conquests of Peloponnêsos.♦
But the last conqueror has been twice driven to conquer Peloponnêsos
afresh. The first revolt under Venetian support was crushed a few
years after the first conquest. ♦1463-1540. | 1670. | 1685.♦ Then the
Turk gradually gathered in the Venetian ports, and the whole peninsula
was his, save so far as _Maina_ kept on a kind of wild independence
almost down to the last Venetian conquest. The complete and unbroken
possession of all Peloponnêsos by the Ottoman has never filled up the
whole of any one century.
* * * * *
♦Despotat of Epeiros.♦
We have seen how the despotat of Epeiros parted away from the momentary
Empire of Thessalonikê. The despots, like their neighbours, often found
it convenient to acknowledge the overlordship of some other power,
Venice, Nikaia, Sicily, or Achaia. The boundaries of their dominions
were greatly cut short by the advance of the restored Empire and by
the cessions to Manfred of Sicily. ♦Dismemberment of the despotat.♦ A
state was left which took in old Epeiros, Akarnania, and Aitôlia, save
the points on the coast which were held by other powers. _Arta_, the
old _Ambrakia_, was, as in the days of Pyrrhos, its head. ♦1271-1318.
| 1309.♦ Another branch reigned in _Great Blachia_ or Thessaly, with
its capital at _Neopatra_, a capital presently lost to the Catalan
invaders. ♦1318. | 1339. | Servian conquest. 1331-1355.♦ Next the
greater part of Thessaly, and then Epeiros itself, were recovered by
the Empire, and then all gradually passed under the Servian power. On
the break-up of that power came a time of utter confusion and endless
shiftings, which has however one marked feature. ♦Advance of the
Albanians.♦ The Albanian race now comes fully to the front. Albanian
settlers press into all the southern lands, and Albanian principalities
stand forth on a level with those held by Greek and Latin lords.
♦Kings of Albania of the house of Thopia, 1358-1392.♦
The chief Albanian power which arose within the bounds of the despotat
was the house of _Thopia_ in northern Epeiros. ♦1366.♦ They called
themselves _Kings of Albania_; they won Durazzo from the Angevins,
and their power lasted till that duchy passed to Venice. ♦Servian
dynasty in Epeiros. 1359.♦ To the south of them, in southern Epeiros,
Akarnania, and Aitolia, reigned a Servian dynasty, whose prince Stephen
Urosh added Thessaly to his dominions, and called himself _Emperor of
the Serbs and Greeks_.[39] ♦1363.♦ His western dominion passed from
him. A Servian despot ruled at _Jôannina_, and an Albanian despot at
_Arta_. ♦Kingdom of Thessaly. | Turkish conquest. | 1393.♦ But Thessaly
went on as a kingdom, taking in the greater part of the land anciently
so called,[40] a kingdom which was the first Hellenic land to pass
under the power of the Turk. ♦1396.♦ Neopatra and Salôna followed,
and the Ottoman power stretched to the Corinthian gulf, and parted
asunder the still independent states of Western Greece from Attica and
Peloponnêsos.
In Epeiros the Servian and Albanian despots had both to yield to
Italian houses. ♦Buondelmonti in Northern Epeiros.♦ Northern Epeiros
passed to the Florentine house of _Buondelmonte_. ♦The house of Tocco.♦
To the south arose a dynasty of greater interest, the Beneventan house
of _Tocco_, the last independent princes in Western Greece. ♦1357.♦
They first, as counts palatine, held Kephallênia and Zakynthos as a
fief of the Latin Empire. ♦1362.♦ Then they won Leukadia with the ducal
title. ♦1394.♦ They next began a continental dominion, first for a
moment in Peloponnêsos, then more lastingly in the lands near their
island duchy. ♦1405-1418.♦ Duke Charles of Leukadia gradually won all
Epeiros save the Venetian posts; and he, his wife, and his heirs were
called Despot of Romania, King of Epeiros, and even Empress of the
Romans.[41] ♦Its effects.♦ This dynasty, though not long-lived on the
mainland, is of real and abiding importance in the history of the Greek
nation. The advance of the Albanians was checked; their settlements
were thrust further north and further south, while the Beneventan
dominions became and remained purely Greek. ♦Venetian and Turkish
occupation. 1430.♦ Soon after the death of Duke Charles, the Turk won
Jôannina and the greater part of Epeiros; but his son kept _Arta_ and
its neighbourhood for nineteen years as a vassal of Venice. ♦1449.♦
Then the dominions of Duke _Charles_ became the Turkish province of
_Karlili_. ♦1449-1479. | 1481-1483.♦ The house of Tocco kept its island
possessions for thirty years longer. Then they too passed to the
Turk, to be recovered for a moment by their own Duke, and then to be
struggled for between Turk and Venetian.
♦Northern Albania.♦
Meanwhile the strictly Albanian lands, from the Akrokeraunian point
northwards, were subdued by the Turk, were freed, and subdued again.
♦1414. | Turkish conquest. 1431.♦ Early in the fifteenth century the
Turk won all Albania, except the Venetian posts. ♦Revolt. 1448.♦
Seventeen years later came a revolt and a successful defence of
the country, whose later stages are ennobled by the name of George
Kastriota of Croja, the famous Scanderbeg. ♦Death of Scanderbeg. 1467.♦
His death gave his land back to the Ottoman, while Croja itself was for
a while held by Venice. The whole Greek and Albanian mainland was now
divided between Turk and Venetian.
♦The Empire of Trebizond.♦
Lastly, we must not forget that Greek state which outlived all the
rest. Far away, on the furthest bounds of the elder Empire, the Empire
of _Trebizond_ had the honour of being the last remaining fragment
of the Eastern Roman power. The rule of the Grand Komnênos survived
the fall of Constantinople; it survived the conquest of Athens and
Peloponnêsos.
♦Origin of the Empire. 1204.♦
We have seen the origin and early history of this power. After its
western dominions passed to the Nicene Emperors and Sinôpê to the Turk,
the Trapezuntine Empire was confined to the eastern part of the south
coast of the Euxine, stretching over part of Iberia, and keeping the
Imperial possessions in the Tauric Chersonêsos. Sometimes independent,
sometimes tributary to Turks or Mongols, the power of Trebizond lived
on for nearly eighty years as a distinct and rival Roman Empire.
♦Agreement between Constantinople and Trebizond, 1281.♦ Then, when
Constantinople was again in Greek hands, John Komnênos of Trebizond was
content to acknowledge Michael Palaiologos as Emperor of the Romans,
and to content himself with the style of ‘Emperor of all the East, of
Iberia, and of _Perateia_.’ This last name means the _province beyond
the sea_, in the Tauric Chersonêsos or _Crim_. We thus see that the
style of ‘Emperor of the East,’ which it is sometimes convenient to
give to him of Constantinople, strictly belongs to him of Trebizond.
The new Empire of the East suffered many fluctuations of territory,
chiefly at the hands of the neighbouring Turkomans. _Chalybia_,
the land of iron, was lost; the coast-line was split asunder; the
Empire bowed to Timour. ♦Turkish conquest of Trebizond; 1461.♦ But
the capital and a large part of the coast bore up to the last, and
did not pass under the Ottoman yoke till eight years after the fall
of Constantinople. ♦of Perateia. 1472.♦ The outlying dependency of
_Perateia_ or _Gothia_ was not conquered till eleven years later still.
As the Tauric Chersonêsos had sheltered the last Greek commonwealth, it
sheltered also the last Greek principality.
§ 6. _The Slavonic States._
The Greek and Frank states of which we have just been speaking arose,
for the most part they directly arose, out of the Latin partition of
the Empire. ♦Effects of the partition of the Empire on the Slavonic
states.♦ On the Slavonic powers the effect of that partition was
only indirect. Servia and Bulgaria had begun their second career of
independence before the partition. The partition touched them only so
far as the splitting up of the Empire into a number of small states
took away all fear of their being again brought under its obedience. In
Croatia and Dalmatia all trace of the Imperial power passed away. The
Magyar held the inland parts; the question was whether the Magyar or
the Venetian should hold the coast.
♦Servia and Bulgaria.♦
The chief independent Slavonic powers were those of _Servia_ and
_Bulgaria_. Of these, Servia represents the unmixed Slave, as unmixed,
that is, as any nation can be; Bulgaria represents the Slave brought
under some measure of Turanian influence and mixture. The history of
the purer race is the longer and the more brilliant. The Servian people
made a longer resistance to the Turk than the Bulgarian people; they
were the first to throw off his yoke; one part of them never submitted
to his yoke at all. ♦Extent of Servia.♦ The oldest Servia, as we have
seen, stretched far beyond the bounds of the present principality,
and had a considerable Hadriatic sea-board, though interrupted by the
Roman cities. Among the Zupans or princes of the many Servian tribes,
the chief were the northern Grand-Zupans of _Desnica_ on the Drina,
and the southern Grand-Zupans of _Dioklea_ or _Rascia_, so called from
their capital _Rassa_, the modern _Novi-Bazar_. This last principality
was the germ of the historical kingdom of Servia. ♦Relations to the
Empire.♦ But till the fall of the old Empire, the Imperial claims
over Servia were always asserted and were often enforced. ♦1018.♦
Indeed common enmity to the Bulgarian, the momentary conqueror of
Servia,[42] formed a tie between Servia and the Empire down to the
complete incorporation of Servia by Basil the Second. ♦1040. | Conquest
by Manuel Komnênos; 1148.♦ The successful revolt of Servia made room
for more than one claimant of Servian dominion and kingship; but
the Imperial claims remained, to be enforced again in their fulness
by Manuel Komnênos. At last the Latin conquest relieved Servia from
all danger on the part of Constantinople; Servia stood forth as an
independent power under the kings of the house of Nemanja.
♦Relations towards Hungary.♦
They had to struggle against more dangerous enemies to the north in
the Kings of Hungary. ♦Loss of Bosnia.♦ Even before the last Imperial
conquest, the Magyars had cut away the western part of Servia, the land
beyond the Drina, known as _Bosnia_ or _Rama_. Under the last name it
gave the Hungarian princes one of their royal titles. ♦1286.♦ This
land was more than once won back by Servia; but its tendency was to
separation and to growth at the cost of Servia. ♦1326.♦ In the first
half of the fourteenth century, Bosnia was enlarged by the Servian
lands bordering on the Dalmatian coast, the lands of _Zachloumia_ and
_Terbounia_, which were never permanently won back. So the lands on the
Save, between the Drina and the Morava, taking in the modern capital
of Belgrade, passed, in the endless shiftings of the frontier, at one
time to Bulgaria and at another to Hungary. ♦Servian advance eastward
and southward.♦ Servia, thus cut short to the north and west, was
driven to advance southward and eastward, at the expense of Bulgaria
and of the powers which had taken the place of the Empire on the
lower Hadriatic coast. From the latter part of the thirteenth century
onwards, Servia grew to be the greatest power in the south-eastern
peninsula. ♦Her seaboard. 1296.♦ Shorn of her old Hadriatic seaboard,
she gained a new and longer one, stretching from the mouths of Cattaro
to Durazzo. ♦1319-1322.♦ Durazzo itself twice fell into Servian hands;
but at the time of the highest power of Servia that city remained an
Angevin outpost on the Servian mainland. ♦Reign of Stephen Dushan,
1331-1355.♦ That highest power was reached in the reign of Stephen
Dushan, who spread his dominions far indeed at the cost of Greeks and
Franks, at the cost of his old Slavonic neighbours and of the rising
powers of Albania. In the new Servian capital of _Skopia_, _Skoupi_,
or _Skopje_, the Tzar Stephen took an Imperial crown as _Emperor of
the Serbs and Greeks_. ♦1346. | The Servian Empire.♦ The new Empire
stretched uninterruptedly from the Danube to the Corinthian gulf. At
one end Bosnia was won back; at the other end the Servian rule was
spread over Aitôlia and Thessaly, over Macedonia and Thrace as far as
_Christopolis_. It only remained to give a head to this great body, and
to make New Rome the seat of the Servian power.
♦Break up of the Servian power, 1355.♦
But the Servian tzardom broke in pieces at the death of the great
Servian Tzar; and before he died, the Ottoman was already in Europe. In
fact the historical result of the great advance of Servia was to split
up the whole of the Greek and Slavonic lands, and to leave no power of
either race able to keep out the barbarian. We have seen how the titles
of Stephen’s Empire lived for a generation in the Greek part of his
dominions.[43] In Macedonia and Thrace several small principalities
sprang up, and a power arose at Skodra of which we shall have to speak
again. To the north Bosnia fell away, and carried Zachloumia with it.
♦Later Kingdom of Servia.♦ Servia itself comes out of the chaos as a
separate kingdom, a kingdom wholly cut off from the sea, but stretching
southward as far as _Prisrend_, and again holding the lands between the
Drina and the Morava. ♦Conquests and deliverances of Servia. 1375.♦ The
Turk first took _Nish_, and brought the kingdom under tribute. ♦1389.♦
The overthrow at Kossovo made Servia wholly dependent. ♦1403.♦ With
the fall of Bajazet it again became free for a generation. ♦1438.♦
Then the Turk won the whole land except Belgrade. ♦1442. | 1444.♦ Then
the campaign of Huniades restored Servia as a free kingdom; the event
of Varna again brought her under tribute. ♦1459.♦ At last Mahomet the
Conqueror incorporated all Servia, except Belgrade, with his dominions.
* * * * *
♦The Kingdom of Bosnia.♦
The history of _Bosnia_, as a really separate power, holding its own
place in Europe, begins with the break-up of the momentary Servian
Empire. ♦Its origin, 1376.♦ The Ban Stephen Tvartko became the first
king of the last Bosnian dynasty, under the nominal superiority of the
Hungarian crown. Thus, at the very moment of the coming of the Turk, a
kingdom of Latin creed and associations became the first power among
the south-eastern Slaves. For a while it seemed as if Bosnia was going
to take the place which had been held by Servia. ♦Greatest extent of
Bosnia, 1382.♦ The Bosnian kingdom at its greatest extent took in all
the present Bosnia and Herzegovina, with, it would seem, all Dalmatia
except Zara, and the north-west corner of Servia stretching beyond
the Drina. But the Bosnian power was broken at Kossovo as well as
that of Servia. ♦Loss of Jayce, 1391.♦ In the time of confusion which
followed, Jayce in the north-west corner became a power connected with
both Hungary and Bosnia, while the Turk established himself in the
extreme south. The Turk was driven out for a while, but the kingdom
was dismembered to form a new Latin power. ♦Duchy of Saint Saba or
Herzegovina. 1440.♦ The Lord of the old Zachloumia, a Bosnian vassal,
transferred his homage to the Austrian king of the Romans, and, became
sovereign Duke of _Saint Sava_, perhaps rather of _Primorie_. Thus
arose the state of _Herzegovina_, that is the _Duchy_, commemorating in
its half-German name the relation of its prince to the Western Empire.
But neither kingdom nor duchy was long-lived. ♦1449.♦ Within ten years
after the separation of Herzegovina the Turk held western Bosnia.
♦Turkish conquest of Bosnia, 1463;♦ Fourteen years later he subdued
the whole kingdom. ♦of Herzegovina, 1483.♦ The next year the duchy
became tributary, and twenty years after the conquest of Bosnia it was
incorporated with the now Turkish province of Bosnia. But in the long
struggle between Venice and the Turk various parts of its territory,
especially the coast, came under the power of the Republic.
* * * * *
Meanwhile one small Slavonic land, one surviving fragment of the great
Servian dominion, maintained its independence through all changes.
In the break-up of the Servian Empire, a small state, with Skodra for
its capital, formed itself in the district of Zeta, reaching northwards
as far as Cattaro. ♦Dominion of the house of Balsa at Skodra. | Loss
of Skodra, 1394.♦ For a moment its princes of the house of _Balsa_
spread their power over all Northern Albania; but the new state was
cut short on all sides by Bosnia, Venice, and the Turk, and Skodra
itself was sold to Venice. In the middle of the fifteenth century, the
state took a more definite shape, though with a smaller territory,
under a new dynasty, that of Tzernojevich. ♦Beginning of Montenegro,
1456.♦ This independent remnant answered to the modern _Tzernagora_
or _Montenegro_, with a greater extent to the east and with a small
seaboard taking in Antivari. ♦Establishment of Tzetinje, 1488.♦ Its
capital _Zabljak_ was more than once lost and won from the Turk; at
the end of the century it was found hopeless to defend the lower
districts, and prince and people withdrew to the natural fortress of
the Black Mountain with its newly founded capital of Tzetinje. ♦The
Vladikas, 1499. | Lay princes, 1851.♦ The last prince of the dynasty
resigned his power to the metropolitan bishop, and Montenegro remained
an independent state under its Vladikas or hereditary prelates, till
their dominion was in our own time again exchanged for that of temporal
princes. During all this time the territory of Montenegro was simply
so much of the mountain region as could maintain its independence
against the ceaseless attacks of the Turk. Yet Montenegro, as the ally
of England and Russia, bore her part in the great European struggle,
and won for herself a haven and a capital at Cattaro. ♦1813. | 1858.♦
Her allies stood by while Cattaro was filched by the Austrian; and,
more than forty years later, when a definite frontier was first traced,
Western diplomacy so traced it as to give the Turk an inlet on both
sides to the unconquered Christian land. ♦Montenegrin conquests,
1876-1877.♦ In the latest times the Montenegrin arms set free a large
part of the kindred land of Herzegovina, and won back a considerable
part of the lost territory to the east, including part of the old
seaboard as far as _Dulcigno_. ♦1878.♦ Then Western diplomacy drew
another frontier, which forbade any large incorporation of the kindred
Slavonic districts, while a small extension was allowed in that part of
the lost ancient territory which had become Albanian. Of three havens
won by Montenegro in the war, _Dulcigno_ has been given back to the
Turk. ♦Spizza.♦ Austria has been allowed to filch _Spizza_, as she had
before filched Ragusa and Cattaro. The third haven, that of _Antivari_,
was left to those who had won it under such restrictions as armed wrong
knows how to impose on the weaker power of right.
* * * * *
The continued independence of Montenegro enables the Servian branch
of the Slavonic race to say that their nation has never been wholly
enslaved. ♦The third Bulgarian kingdom.♦ The case has been different
with Bulgaria. We have seen the origin of the third Bulgarian, or
rather _Vlacho-Bulgarian_, kingdom which won its independence of the
Empire in the last years of the twelfth century. From that time to
the Turkish conquest, one or more Bulgarian states always existed.
And throughout the thirteenth century, the Bulgarian kingdom, though
its boundaries were ever shifting, was one of the chief powers of the
south-eastern peninsula.
The oldest Bulgaria between Danube and Hæmus was the first to throw
off the Byzantine dominion, and the last to come under the power of
the Turk. ♦Bulgarian advance. 1197-1207.♦ But the new Bulgarian power
grew fast, and for a while called back the days of Simeon and Samuel.
Under Joannice the frontier stretched far to the north-west, over
lands which gradually passed to Servia, taking in Skupi, Nish, and
even Belgrade. ♦Dominion of John Asan. 1218-1241.♦ Under the Tzar John
Asan the new Bulgaria, the kingdom of _Tirnovo_, reached its greatest
extent. The greater part of Thrace, Philippopolis and the whole land of
_Rhodopê_ or _Achridos_, Hadrianople itself, Macedonia too stretching
away to Samuel’s Ochrida and to _Albanon_ or Elbassan, were all under
his rule. If his realm did not touch the Hadriatic or the Ægæan, it
came very near to both; but Thessalonikê at least always remained to
its Frank and Greek lords.[44] But this great power, like so many other
powers of its kind, did not survive its founder. ♦Decline of Bulgaria.
1246-1257.♦ The revived Greek states, the Nicene Empire and the Epeirot
despotat, cut the Bulgarian realm short. The disputes of an older and
of a later time went on.[45] ♦Shiftings of the frontier.♦ There was
undisputed Bulgaria north of Hæmus, an ever-shifting frontier south of
it. The inland Philippopolis, and the coast towns of _Anchialos_ and
_Mesêmbria_, passed backwards and forwards between Greek and Bulgarian.
♦Philippopolis finally Bulgarian. 1344-1366.♦ The last state of things,
immediately before the common overthrow, gave Philippopolis to Bulgaria
and the coast towns to the Empire.
♦Wars with Hungary. 1260.♦
An attempt at extension of the north by an attack on the Hungarian
Banat of _Severin_, the western part of modern Wallachia, led only to a
Hungarian invasion, to a temporary loss of _Widdin_, and the assumption
of a Bulgarian title by the Magyar king. ♦Cuman dynasty in Bulgaria.
1280.♦ Presently a new Turanian dynasty, this time of Cuman descent,
reigned in Bulgaria, and soon after, the kingdom passed for the moment
under a mightier overlord in the person of Nogai Khan. ♦Break-up of
the kingdom. 1357.♦ In the fourteenth century the kingdom broke up.
♦Principality of Dobrutcha.♦ The despot _Dobroditius_—his name has many
spellings—formed a separate dominion on the seaboard, stretching from
the Danube to the Imperial frontier, cutting off the King of Tirnovo
from the sea. Part of his land preserves his memory in its modern
name _Dobrutcha_. Presently we hear of three Bulgarias, the central
state at Tirnovo, the sea-land of Dobroditius, and a north-western
state at Widdin. ♦1362. | 1365-1369.♦ By this time the Ottoman inroads
had begun; Philippopolis was lost, and Bulgarian princes were blind
enough to employ Turkish help in a second attack on Severin, which
led only to a second temporary loss of Widdin. ♦1382. | 1388.♦ The
Turk now pressed on; Sofia was taken; the whole land became a Turkish
dependency. ♦Conquest by Bajazet, 1393.♦ After Kossovo the land was
wholly conquered, save only that the northern part of the land of
Dobroditius passed to Wallachia. Bulgaria passed away from the list
of European states both sooner and more utterly than Servia. Servia
still had its alternations of freedom and bondage for sixty years. In
after times large parts of it passed to a rule which, if foreign, was
at least European. In later days Servia was the first of the subject
nations to win its freedom. But the bondage of Bulgaria was never
disturbed from the days of Bajazet to our own time.
§ 7. _The Kingdom of Hungary._
The origin of the Hungarian kingdom and the reasons for dealing with
along with the states which arose out of the break-up of the Eastern
Empire have already been spoken of.[46] ♦Character of the Hungarian
kingdom.♦ The Finnish conquerors of the Slave, admitted within the
pale of Western Christendom, founding a new Hungary on the Danube and
the Theiss while they left behind them an older Hungary on the Kama,
have points of contact at once with Asia and with both Eastern and
Western Europe. ♦Its position in south-eastern Europe.♦ But, as closely
connected in their history with the nations of the south-eastern
peninsula, as sharers in the bondage and in the deliverance of Servia,
Greece, and Bulgaria, in our geographical survey they claim a place
where they may be looked at strictly as part of the south-eastern world.
♦Effects of the Magyar invasion.♦
It has been already noticed[47] that the main geographical work of the
Magyar was to cut off that south-eastern world, the world where the
Greek and the Slave, struggling for its supremacy, were both swallowed
up by the Ottoman, from the Slavonic region between the Carpathians
and the Baltic. ♦Great Moravia. 884-894.♦ At the moment of the Magyar
inroad, the foundation of the _Great-Moravian_ kingdom, the kingdom
of Sviatopluk, made it more likely than it has ever been since that
the Slaves of the two regions might be united into a single power.
That kingdom, stretching to Sirmium, marched on the north-western
dependencies of the Eastern Empire, while on the north it took in the
Chrobatian land which was afterwards Little Poland. Such a power might
have been dangerous to both Empires at once; but the invaders whom the
two Emperors called in proved far more dangerous than Great Moravia
could ever have been. The Magyars, Ogres, or Hungarians, the Turks
of the Imperial geographer,[48] were called in by his father Leo to
check the Bulgarians, as they were called in by Arnulf in the West to
check the new power of Moravia. They passed, from the north rather than
from the east, into the land which was disputed between Moravian and
Bulgarian. ♦906. Relations between Hungary and Germany.♦ The Moravian
power was overthrown, and the Magyars, stepping into its place, became
constant invaders of both Empires and their dependent lands. But to the
west, the victories of the Saxon kings put a check to their inroads,
and, save some shiftings on the Austrian march, the frontier of Germany
and Hungary has been singularly abiding.
♦The two Chrobatias separated by the Magyars.♦
While the Magyar settlement placed a barrier between the two chief
regions of the Slavonic race as a whole, it specially placed a barrier
between the two divisions of the _Croatian_ or _Chrobatian_ people,
those on the Vistula and those on the Drave and Save. ♦1025.♦ The
northern _Chrobatia_ still reached south of the Carpathians, and it
was not until the eleventh century that the Magyar kingdom, by the
acquisition of its southern part, gained a natural frontier which,
with some shiftings, served to part it off from the Slavonic powers to
the north of it. To the south-east an uncultivated and wooded tract
separated the Magyar territory from the lands between the Carpathians
and the lower Danube which were still held by the Patzinaks.
♦Geographical position of the Magyars.♦ The oldest Magyar settlement
thus occupied the central part of the modern kingdom, on the Theiss and
the middle Danube. There the Turanian invaders formed a ruling and
central race, within a Slavonic fringe at each end. There were northern
and southern Croats, _Slovaks_ to the north, and _Ruthenians_ to the
north-west, towards the kindred land of _Halicz_ or _Red Russia_.
♦Hungary a kingdom: its growth.♦
Hungary, ranking from the beginning of the eleventh century as a
kingdom of Latin Christendom, presently grew in all directions. We have
just seen its advance at the expense of the northern Chrobatian land.
Its advance at the expense of the southern branch of that race, and of
the other Slavonic lands which owed more or less of allegiance to the
Eastern Empire, was still more marked. ♦Hungary and Croatia.♦ All these
lands at one time or another gave royal titles to the King of Hungary,
King also of Croatia, of Dalmatia, of Rama, even of Bulgaria. But in
most of these lands the Hungarian kingship was temporary or nominal; in
Croatia alone, though the frontier has often shifted, Hungarian rule
has been abiding. Croatia has never formed an independent state since
the first Hungarian conquest; it has never been fully wrested from
Hungary since the days of Manuel Komnênos. In those days it was indeed
a question whether Hungary itself had not an overlord in the Eastern
Emperor. After the great Bulgarian revolt that question could never be
raised again. But the Hungarian frontier was ever shifting towards the
former lands of the Empire, Venetian, Servian, and Bulgarian. ♦Kingdom
of Slavonia. 1492.♦ One part of the old Croatian kingdom, the land
between Save and Drave, was cut off to form, first an appanage, then an
annexed kingdom, by the special name of _Slavonia_, a name shared by it
with lands on the Baltic, perhaps on the Ægæan.
But, from the first days of its conversion, the Hungarian realm
began to advance in other directions, in lands which had formed no
part of the Empire since the days of Aurelian. ♦Transsilvania or
_Siebenbürgen_. | 1004.♦ Before their Chrobatian conquest, the Magyars
passed the boundary which divided them from the Patzinaks, and won the
land which from its position took the name of _Transsilvania_.[49]
Colonists were invited to settle in the thinly inhabited land. One
chief settlement was of the Low-Dutch speech from Saxony and Flanders.
♦Various colonies.♦ Another element was formed by the Turanian
_Szeklers_, whose Latin form of _Siculi_ might easily mislead. Another
migration brought back the name and speech of the Old Rome to the first
land from which she had withdrawn her power.
♦Origin of the Roumans.♦
The legendary belief in the unbroken life of the Roman name and speech
in the lands north of the Danube is merely a legendary belief.[50]
There can be no reasonable doubt that the present principality of
Roumania and the Rouman lands beyond its borders derived their present
population and language from a settlement of the Rouman people further
south. South of the Danube, the Rouman or Vlach population, scattered
among Greeks, Slaves, and Albanians, at many points from Pindos
northwards, has kept its distinct nationality, but it has never formed
a political whole. ♦Their Northern migration.♦ But a migration beyond
the Danube enabled the Roumans in course of time to found two distinct
principalities, and to form a chief element in the population of a
third. There is no sign of any Rouman population north of the Danube
before the thirteenth century. The events of that century opened a way
for a reversal of the ordinary course of migration, for the settlement
of lands beyond the Empire by former subjects of the Empire.
♦Rouman element in the third Bulgarian kingdom.♦
We have seen that the third Bulgarian kingdom, that which arose at
the end of the twelfth century, was in its origin as much Rouman as
Bulgarian. ♦Cumans in Dacia.♦ By this time the rule of the Patzinaks
beyond the lower Danube had given way to that of the kindred _Cumans_.
♦Mongolian invasion.♦ Then the storm of Mongolian invasion, which
crushed Hungary itself for a moment, crushed the Cuman power for
ever. But the remnant of the Cuman nation lived on within the Magyar
realm, and gave its king yet another title, that of _King of Cumania_.
♦Rouman settlement in the Cuman land.♦ The former Cuman land now
lay open to new settlers, and the Rouman part of the inhabitants of
the new Bulgaria began to cross the Danube into that land and the
neighbouring districts. In the course of the thirteenth century they
occupied the present Wallachia, and already formed an element in the
mixed population of Transsilvania. A Rouman state thus began to be
formed, which took the name by which the Roumans were known to their
neighbours. The new _Vlachia_, _Wallachia_, stretched on both sides
of the Aluta. ♦Little Wallachia.♦ To the west of that river, _Little
Wallachia_ formed, as the banat of _Severin_, an integral part of the
Hungarian kingdom. ♦Great Wallachia.♦ _Great Wallachia_ to the east
formed a separate principality, dependent or independent on Hungary,
according to its strength from time to time. ♦Dobrutcha.♦ And, towards
the end of the fourteenth century, the land south of the Danube, called
_Dobrutcha_, passed from Bulgaria to Wallachia. ♦Moldavia. c. 1341.♦
Another Rouman migration, passing from the land of _Marmaros_ north
of Transsilvania, founded the principality of _Moldavia_ between the
Carpathians and the Dniester. This too stood to the Hungarian crown
in the same shifting relation as Great Wallachia, and sometimes
transferred its vassalage to Lithuania and Poland.
♦Lewis the Great, 1342-1382;♦
The greatest extension of the Hungarian dominion was in the fourteenth
century, under the Angevin King Lewis the Great. Before his time
the Magyar frontier had advanced and fallen back. ♦First possession
of Halicz, 1185-1220,♦ Hungary, having a Russian population within
its borders, had for a while enlarged its Russian dominion by the
annexation of the Red Russian land of _Halicz_ or _Galicia_. ♦of
Widdin, 1260-1264.♦ It had also, for a shorter time, occupied the
Bulgarian town of Widdin. ♦Conquests of Lewis, Halicz and Vladimir,
1342; Widdin, 1365-1369.♦ Lewis renewed both these conquests, and
made others. Halicz was not only won again, but was enlarged by the
neighbouring principality of _Vladimir_. The great day of Hungary was
contemporary with the great day of Servia, but it was a longer day, and
Hungary profited greatly by the fall of Servia. ♦1356.♦ While Lewis
annexed Dalmatia, he also at various times established his supremacy
over Bosnia and the Rouman principalities. That Lewis was king of
Poland by a personal union did not affect Hungarian geography. ♦Red
Russia restored to Poland, 1390.♦ But the separation of the crowns at
his death led presently to the restoration of the Red Russian provinces
to Poland. ♦Pledging of Zips, 1412.♦ Somewhat later, under Sigismund,
a territory within the Hungarian border, part of the county of _Zips_
or _Czepusz_, was pledged to Poland, and continued to be held by that
power.
* * * * *
Meanwhile the Ottoman was on his march to overthrow Hungary as well
as its neighbours, though the position of the Magyar kingdom made it
the last to be devoured and the first to be delivered. The Turkish
inroads as yet barely grazed the strictly Hungarian frontier. ♦First
Turkish invasion. 1391.♦ The first Turkish invasion of Hungary, the
first Turkish exaction of tribute from Wallachia, came in the same year
in which Sigismund established his supremacy over Bosnia. ♦Battle of
Nikopolis. 1396. | Campaign of Huniades 1443. | Battle of Varna. 1444.♦
The defeat of Nikopolis confirmed the Turkish supremacy in Wallachia,
a supremacy which was again won for Hungary in the great campaign
of Huniades, and was again lost at Varna. ♦Disputes for Dalmatia.♦
Meanwhile the full possession of Dalmatia did not outlive the reign of
Lewis. Henceforth Hungary is merely one competitor among others in the
ceaseless shiftings of the Dalmatian frontier.
♦Hungary under Matthias Corvinus. 1458-1490.♦
Later in the fifteenth century came another day of Hungarian greatness
under the son of Huniades, Matthias Corvinus. ♦1477. | 1485.♦ Its most
distinguishing feature was the extension of the Magyar power to the
west, over Bohemia and its dependencies, and even over the Austrian
archduchy. ♦1467.♦ In the south-eastern lands Wallachia and Moldavia
again became Hungarian dependencies. ♦1463.♦ _Jayce_ was won back
from the Turk, now lord of Bosnia, and, Belgrade being now Hungarian,
the frontier towards the Ottoman was fixed till the time of his great
advance northwards.
♦Loss of Belgrade. 1521.♦
The first stage of Ottoman conquest in Hungary, as distinguished from
mere ravage, was the taking of Belgrade. ♦Battle of Mohacz. 1526.♦ With
the battle of Mohacz, five years later, the separate history of Hungary
ends. ♦Turkish occupation of the greater part of Hungary. | 1552-1687.♦
That victory, followed by the disputes for the Hungarian crown between
an Austrian archduke and a Transsilvanian palatine, enabled Suleiman
to make himself master of the greater part of the kingdom, especially
of the part which was most thoroughly Magyar. From the middle of
the sixteenth century till the latter years of the seventeenth, the
Austrian Kings of Hungary kept only a fragment of Croatia, including
_Zagrab_ or _Agram_, and a strip of north-western Hungary, including
_Pressburg_. The whole central part of the kingdom passed under the
immediate dominion of the Turk, and a Pasha ruled at Buda. Besides
this great incorporation of Hungarian soil, the Turk held three vassal
principalities within the dominions of Lewis the Great. ♦Tributary
principalities: Transsilvania, Wallachia, Moldavia. 1497.♦ One was
_Transsilvania_, increased by a large part of north-eastern Hungary;
the second was _Wallachia_; the third was _Moldavia_, which began to be
tributary late in the fifteenth century. The Rouman lands became more
and more closely dependent on the Turk, who took on him to name their
princes. ♦1606.♦ Indeed, one might for a while add the Austrian kingdom
of Hungary itself as a fourth vassal state, as it paid tribute to the
Turk into the seventeenth century. ♦The Rouman lands disputed between
Poland and the Turk.♦ For the superiority of the Rouman principalities
an endless struggle went on between Poland and the Turk. At last the
same Slavonic power stepped in to deliver Hungary and Austria also.
♦Battle of Vienna. 1683.♦ With the overthrow of the Turk before Vienna
began the reaction of Christendom against Islam which has gone on to
our own day.
♦Recovery of Hungary from the Turk.♦
The wars which follow answer to the wars of independence in Servia and
Greece in so far as the Turk was driven out of a Christian land. They
differ in this, that the Turk was driven out of Greece and Servia to
the profit of Greece and Servia themselves, while he was driven out
of Hungary to the profit of the Austrian king. ♦Peace of Carlowitz.
1699.♦ The first stage of the work, the war which was ended by the
Peace of Carlowitz, won back nearly all Croatia and Slavonia, and all
Hungary proper, except the land of _Temeswar_ between Danube, Theiss,
and Maros. ♦Incorporation of Transsilvania. 1713.♦ Transsilvania
became a dependency of the Hungarian kingdom, with which it was
presently incorporated. Wallachia and Moldavia remained under Turkish
supremacy. ♦Peace of Passarowitz. 1718.♦ The next war, ended by the
Peace of Passarowitz, fully restored the Hungarian kingdom as part of
Christendom. The Turk kept only a small part of Croatia. All Slavonia
and the banat of Temeswar were won back; the frontier was even carried
south of the Save, so as to take in a small strip of Bosnia and a
great part of Servia, as also the Lesser Wallachia, the old banat
of Severin. Thus, while the first stage delivered Buda, the second
delivered Belgrade. But the next war, ended by the Peace of Belgrade,
largely undid the work. ♦Losses by the Peace of Belgrade. 1739.♦ The
frontier fell back to the point at which it stayed till our own day.
From the mouth of the Unna to Orsovo, the Save and the Danube became
the frontier. Belgrade, and all the land south of those rivers, passed
again to the Turk, and Little Wallachia became again part of a Turkish
dependency. ♦Final loss of Belgrade. 1789-1791.♦ At a later stage of
the century Belgrade was again delivered and again lost.
♦Acquisitions from Poland.♦
The later acquisitions of the House of Austria were made in the
character of Hungarian kings, but they did not lead to any enlargement
of the Hungarian kingdom. Thus the claim to the Austrian acquisitions
made at the first and third partitions of Poland, rested solely on the
two Hungarian occupations of Red Russia. ♦Galicia and Lodomeria.♦ Under
the softened forms of _Galicia_ and _Lodomeria_, the Red Russian lands
of _Halicz_ and _Vladimir_, together with part of Poland itself, became
a new kingdom of the House of Habsburg, as the greater part of the
territory thus won still remains. ♦Acquisition of Bukovina. 1776-1786.♦
Between the two partitions the new kingdom was increased by the
addition of _Bukovina_, the north-western corner of Moldavia, which was
claimed as an ancient part of the Transsilvanian principality. It was
again only in its Hungarian character that the House of Habsburg could
make any claim to Dalmatia. ♦Dalmatia.♦ Certainly no Austrian duke had
ever reigned over Dalmatia, Red Russia, or the Rouman principalities.
Yet in the present dual arrangement of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy
the so-called _triple kingdom_ of Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia,
is divided between the rule of Pest and the rule of Vienna. Galicia
also counts to the Austrian, and not to the Hungarian, division of the
monarchy. All this is perhaps in harmony with the generally anomalous
character of the power of which they form part. ♦Spizza. 1878.♦ The
port of _Spizza_ has been added to the Dalmatian kingdom. ♦Bosnia and
Herzegovina.♦ It is hard to say in which of his many characters the
Hungarian King and Austrian Archduke holds the lands of _Bosnia_ and
_Herzegovina_, of which the Treaty of Berlin confers on him, not the
sovereignty, but the administration. They might have been claimed by
the Hungarian king in his ancient character of King of Rama. But the
formal aspect of the transaction would seem rather to be that he has,
like his predecessors in the sixteenth century, become the man of the
Turk.
* * * * *
♦Later history of Roumania.♦
After the restoration of the Lesser Wallachia to the Turk and the
addition of Bukovina to Galicia, the geographical history of the Rouman
principalities parts off wholly from that of Hungary, and will be more
fittingly treated in another section.
§ 8. _The Ottoman Power._
♦The Ottoman Turks.♦
Last among the powers which among them supplanted the Eastern Empire,
comes the greatest and most terrible of all, that which overthrew the
Empire itself and most of the states which arose out of its ruins, and
which stands distinguished from all the rest by its abiding possession
of the Imperial city. This is the power of the Ottoman Turks. ♦Their
special character as Mahometans.♦ They stand distinguished from all
the other invaders of the European mainland of the Empire by being
Mahometan invaders. The examples of Bulgaria and Hungary show that
Turanian invaders, as such, are not incapable of being received into
European fellowship. This could not be in the case of a Mahometan
power, bound by its religion to keep its Christian subjects in the
condition of bondmen. The Ottomans could not, like the Bulgarians, be
lost in the greater mass of those whom they conquered. ♦Preservation of
the subject nations.♦ But this very necessity helped in some measure to
preserve the national being of the subject nations. Greeks, Servians,
Bulgarians, have under Ottoman rule remained Greeks, Servians, and
Bulgarians, ready to begin their national career afresh whenever the
time for independence should come. ♦Comparison with the Saracen power
in Spain.♦ The dominion of the Turk in Eastern Europe answers, as a
Mahometan dominion, to the dominion of the Saracen in Western Europe.
But in everything, save the mere reckoning of years, it has been far
more abiding. The Mahometan dominion in southern Spain did indeed last
two hundred years longer than Mahometan dominion has yet lasted in any
part of Eastern Europe. But the Saracen power in the West began to fall
back as soon as it was established, and its last two hundred years
were a mere survival. The Ottomans underwent no considerable loss of
territory till more than four centuries and a half after their first
appearance in Asia, till more than three centuries after their passage
into Europe. Constantinople has been Ottoman sixty years longer than
Toledo was Saracen.
♦Extent of the Ottoman dominion compared with the Eastern Empire.♦
The Ottoman, possessor of the Eastern Rome, does in a rough way
represent the Eastern Roman in the extent of his dominion. The
dominions and dependencies of the Sultans at the height of their power
took in, in Eastern Europe, in Asia, and in Africa, nearly all that had
formed part of the Empire of Justinian, with a large territory, both in
Europe and Asia, which Justinian had not held. Justinian held nothing
north of the Danube; Suleiman held, as sovereign or as overlord, a vast
dominion from Buda to Azof. On the other hand, no part of the dominions
of Justinian in Western Europe, save one city for one moment, ever came
under Ottoman rule. The Eastern Empire in the year 800 was smaller than
even the present reduced dominion of the Turk. The Eastern Empire,
at its height in the eleventh century, held in Europe a dominion far
smaller than the dominion of the Turk in the sixteenth century, far
larger than his dominion now. But in the essential feature of Byzantine
geography, the possession of Constantinople and of the lands on each
side of the Bosporos and Hellespont, the Ottoman Sultan took the place
of the Eastern Emperor, and as yet he keeps it.
♦Effects of the Mongolian advance.♦
The history of the Eastern Empire, and that of the Ottomans in
connexion with it, was largely affected by the movements of the Mongols
in the further East. Mongolian pressure weakened the Seljuk Turks, and
so allowed the growth of the Nicene Empire. Mongolian invasions also
led indirectly to the growth of the Ottoman power, and at a later time
they gave it its greatest check. ♦Origin of the Ottomans.♦ The Ottomans
grew out of a Turkish band who served the Seljuk Sultan against the
Mongols. As his vassals, they began to be a power in Asia and to harry
the coasts of Europe. They passed into Europe, and won a great European
dominion far more quickly than they had won their Asiatic dominion.
This is the special characteristic of the Ottoman power. Asiatic in
everything else, it is geographically European; most of its Asiatic and
all its African dominion was won from an European centre. ♦Break-up and
reunion of the Ottoman power.♦ Already a power in Europe, but not yet
in possession of the Imperial city, the new Ottoman power was for a
moment utterly broken in pieces by the second flood of Mongol invasion.
That the shattered dominion came together again is an event without
a parallel in Eastern history. The restored Ottoman power then won
Constantinople, and from Constantinople, as representing the fallen
Empire, it won back the lost dominion of the Empire. ♦Its permanence.♦
The permanence of the Ottoman power, when Constantinople was once won,
is in no way wonderful. Even the unreclaimed Asiatic, when he was once
seated on the throne of the New Rome, inherited his share of Rome’s
eternity.
* * * * *
♦First settlements of the Ottomans.♦
The first settlements of the Ottoman Turks were on the banks of the
_Sangarios_, which gave them from the beginning a threatening position
towards Europe. ♦1299.♦ By the end of the thirteenth century they were
firmly established in that region. In the first half of the fourteenth
they became the leading power in Western Asia. ♦Conquest of Brusa.
1326-1330.♦ _Brusa_, the Asiatic capital, won in the last days of
the Emir Othman, has a manifest eye towards Europe. ♦Of Nikaia and
Nikomêdeia. 1330-1338.♦ _Nikaia_ and _Nikomêdeia_ followed, and the
Ottoman stepped geographically into the same position towards the
revived Greek Empire which the Nicene princes had held towards the
Latin Empire. ♦Entry into Europe. 1354. | Conquest of Hadrianople.
1361.♦ In the last days of the Emir Othman came their passage into
Europe, and a few more years saw Amurath in his European capital of
Hadrianople, completely hemming Constantinople in. ♦Ottoman advance.♦
The second half of the fourteenth century was a time of the most
speedy Ottoman advance, and the amount of real advance is by no means
represented by the change on the map. We have seen in the case of
Servia, of Greece, and of Hungary, that the course of Turkish invasion
commonly went through three stages. There was first the time of mere
plunder. Then came the tributary stage, and lastly, the day of complete
bondage. ♦Bajazet first Sultan, 1389-1402.♦ Under Bajazet, the first
Ottoman prince who bore the title of Sultan, the immediate Ottoman
dominion in Europe stretched from the Ægæan to the Danube. It took in
all Bulgaria, all Macedonia, Thessaly, and Thrace, save only Chalkidikê
and the district just round Constantinople. Servia and Wallachia were
dependent states, as indeed was the Empire itself. Central and southern
Greece, Bosnia, Hungary, even Styria, were lands open to plunder.
♦Battle of Angora. 1402.♦
This great dominion was broken in pieces by the victory of Timour
at Angora. It seemed that the empire of the Ottoman had passed away
like the empire of the Servian. ♦Break up of the Ottoman power.♦
The dominion of Bajazet was divided among his sons and the princes
of the dispossessed Turkish dynasties. The Christian states had a
breathing-time, and the sons of Bajazet were glad to give back to the
Empire some important parts of its lost territories. ♦Reunited under
Mahomet. 1413.♦ The Ottoman power came together again under Mahomet
the First; but for nearly half a century its advance was slower than
in the half-century before. The conquests of Mahomet and of Amurath
the Second lay mainly in the Greek and Albanian lands. ♦Conquest of
Thessalonikê. 1430.♦ The Turk now reached the Hadriatic, and the
conquest of Thessalonikê gave him a firmer hold on the Ægæan. Towards
Servia and Hungary he lost and he won again; he hardly conquered.
♦Mahomet the Conqueror. 1451-1481.♦ It was the thirty years of Mahomet
the Conqueror which finally gave the Ottoman dominion its European
position. ♦Conquest of Constantinople. 1453.♦ From his first and
greatest conquest of the New Rome, he gathered in what remained, Greek,
Frank, and Slave. The conquest of the Greek mainland, of Albania and
Bosnia, the final conquest of Servia, made him master of the whole
south-eastern peninsula, save only the points held by Venice and the
unconquered height of the Black Mountain. He began to gather in the
Western islands, and he struck the first great blow to the Venetian
power by the conquest of Euboia. Around the Euxine he won the Empire of
Trebizond and the points held by Genoa. The great mass of the islands
and the few Venetian points on the coast still escaped. ♦Extent of his
dominion.♦ Otherwise Mahomet the Conqueror held the whole European
dominions of Basil the Second, with a greater dominion in Asia than
that of Manuel Komnênos. From the Danube to the Tanais and beyond it,
he held a vast overlordship, over lands which had obeyed no Emperor
since Aurelian, over lands which had never obeyed any Emperor at all.
At last the Mussulman lord of Constantinople seemed about to win back
the Italian dominion of its Christian lords. ♦Taking of Otranto, 1480.♦
In his last days, by the possession of Otranto, Mahomet ruled west of
the Hadriatic.
It might have been deemed that the little cloud which now lighted on
Otranto would grow as fast as the little cloud which a hundred and
thirty years before had lighted on Kallipolis. But Bajazet the Second
made no conquests save the points which were won from Venice. ♦Conquest
of Syria and Egypt. 1516-17.♦ Selim the First, the greatest conqueror
of his line against fellow Mahometans, had no leisure, while winning
Syria and Egypt, to make any advance on Christian ground. ♦Conquests
of Suleiman. 1520-1566.♦ But under Suleiman the Lawgiver, not only the
overlordship but the immediate rule of Constantinople under its Turkish
Sultans was spread over wide European lands which had never obeyed its
Christian Emperors. ♦His African overlordship.♦ Then too its Mussulman
lords won back at least the nominal overlordship of that African
seaboard which the first Mussulmans had rent away from the allegiance
of Constantinople. The greatest conquest of Suleiman was made in
Hungary; but he also made the Ægæan an Ottoman sea. The early years of
his reign saw the driving of the Knights from Rhodes, and the winning
of their fortress of Halikarnassos, the last European possession on
Asiatic ground. His last days saw the annexation of the Naxian duchy;
at an intermediate stage Venice lost her Peloponnesian strongholds.
♦Algiers. 1519.♦ In Africa the Turk received the commendation of
_Algiers_ and of _Tunis_. ♦Tunis conquered by Charles the Fifth.
1531. | 1535.♦ But Tunis, won for Christendom by the Imperial King of
the Two Sicilies, was lost and won again, till it was finally won for
Islam by the second Selim. _Tripolis_, granted to the Knights, also
passed to Suleiman. ♦1574.♦ Under Selim _Cyprus_ was added; the fight
of Lepanto could neither save nor recover it; but the advance of the
Turk was stopped. ♦Decline of the Ottoman power.♦ The conquests of the
seventeenth century were small compared with those of earlier days,
and, before that century was out, the Ottoman Terminus had begun to go
back.
♦Greatest extent of the Ottoman power.♦
Yet it was in the last half of the seventeenth century that the
Ottoman Empire reached its greatest geographical extent. ♦Conquest of
Crete. 1641-1669. | of Podolia. 1672-1676.♦ _Crete_ was now won; a
few years later _Kamienetz_ and all _Podolia_ were ceded to the Turk
by Poland. This was not absolutely his last European acquisition, but
it was his last acquisition of a great province. The Ottoman dominion
now covered a wider space on the map than it had done at any earlier
moment. Suleiman in all his glory had not reigned over Cyprus, Crete,
and Podolia. The tide now turned for ever. ♦The Ottoman frontier falls
back.♦ From that time the Ottoman has, like his Byzantine predecessor,
had his periods of revival and recovery, but on the whole his frontier
has steadily gone back.
♦Ottoman loss of Hungary. 1683-1699.♦
The first great blow to the integrity and independence of the
Ottoman Empire was dealt in the war which was ended by the Peace of
Carlowitz. We have seen how Hungary and Peloponnêsos were won back
for Christendom; so was Podolia. We have seen too how at the next
stage the Turk gained at one end and lost at the other, winning back
Peloponnêsos, winning Mykonos and Tênos, but losing on the Save and the
Danube. The next stage shows the Ottoman frontier again in advance;
in our own day we have seen it again fall back. And the change which
has given Bosnia and Herzegovina to the master of Dalmatia, Ragusa,
and Cattaro has, besides throwing back the frontier of the Turk,
redressed a very old geographical wrong. ♦Union of inland and maritime
Illyricum.♦ Ever since the first Slavonic settlements, the inland
region of northern Illyricum has been more or less thoroughly cut off
from the coast cities which form its natural outlets. Whatever may be
the fate of those lands, the body is again joined to the mouth, and the
mouth to the body, and we can hardly fancy them again severed.
* * * * *
The same arrangements which transferred the ‘administration’ of Bosnia
and Herzegovina to the King of Hungary and Dalmatia, have transferred
another part of the Ottoman dominion to a more distant European power
on terms which are still less easy to understand. ♦Cyprus. 1878.♦ The
Greek island of _Cyprus_ has passed to English rule; but it is after
a fashion which may imply that the conquest of Richard of Poitou is
held—not, it is to be hoped, by the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland,
but possibly by the Empress of India—as a tributary of the Ottoman
Sultan.
* * * * *
During the former half of the eighteenth century the shiftings of
the Ottoman territory to the north were all on the side of Austria
or Hungary. ♦Relations of the Turk towards Russia.♦ But a new enemy
of the Turk appeared towards the end of the seventeenth century, one
who was, before the end of the eighteenth, to stand forth as his
chief enemy. ♦Loss and recovery of Azof. 1696-1711.♦ Under Peter the
Great _Azof_ was won by Russia and lost again. Sixty years later
great geographical changes took place in the same region. ♦Treaty of
Kainardji. 1774. | Independence of Crim.♦ By the Treaty of Kainardji,
the dependent khanate of _Crim_—the old Tauric Chersonêsos and the
neighbouring lands—was released from the superiority of the Sultan.
♦Russian annexation of Crim. 1783.♦ This was a natural step towards
its annexation by Russia, which thus again made her way to the Euxine.
♦Of Jedisan. 1791.♦ The Bug was now the frontier; presently, by the
Russian annexation of _Oczakow_ and the land of Jedisan, it fell back
to the Dniester. By the treaty of Bucharest the frontier alike of the
dominion and of the overlordship of the Turk fell back to the Pruth and
the lower Danube. ♦Of Bessarabia. 1812. | Shiftings of the Moldavian
frontier.♦ Russia thus gained _Bessarabia_ and the eastern part of
_Moldavia_. ♦Treaty of Hadrianople. 1829.♦ By the Treaty of Hadrianople
she further won the islands at the mouth of the Danube. ♦Treaty of
Paris, 1856;♦ The Treaty of Paris restored to Moldavia a small part
of the lands ceded at Bucharest, so as to keep the Russian frontier
away from the Danube. ♦of Berlin, 1878.♦ This last cession, with the
exception of the islands, was recovered by Russia at the Treaty of
Berlin. But changes of frontier in those regions no longer affect the
dominion of the Turk.
§ 9. _The Liberated States._
♦Lands liberated from the Ottoman.♦
The losses which the Ottoman power has undergone at the hands of its
independent neighbours, Russia, Montenegro, and Austria or Hungary,
must be distinguished from the liberation of certain lands from Turkish
rule to form new or revived European states. We have seen that the
kingdom of Hungary and its dependent lands might fairly come under this
head, and we have seen in what the circumstances of their liberation
differ from the liberation of Greece or Servia or Bulgaria. But it is
important to bear in mind that the Turk had to be driven from Hungary,
no less than from Greece, Servia, and Bulgaria. If the Turk has ruled
at Belgrade, at Athens, and at Tirnovo, he has ruled at Buda no less.
All stand in the same opposition to Tzetinje, where he has never ruled.
As the Servian people was the only one among the south-eastern nations
of which any part maintained its abiding independence, so the enslaved
part of the Servian people was the first among the subject nations to
throw off the yoke. ♦The Ionian Islands.♦ But the first attempt to form
anything like a free state in south-eastern Europe was made among a
branch of the Greek nation, in the so-called _Ionian Islands_. But the
form which the attempt took was no lessening of the Turkish dominion,
but its increase. ♦Ceded to France. 1797.♦ By the peace of Campoformio,
the islands, with the few Venetian points on the mainland, were to
pass to France. ♦Septinsular Republic under Ottoman overlordship.
1798.♦ By the treaty of the next year between Russia and the Turk,
the points on the mainland were to be handed over to the Turk, while
the islands were to form a commonwealth, tributary to the Turk, but
under the protection of Russia. ♦The Venetian outposts given to the
Turk.♦ Thus, besides an advance of the Turk’s immediate dominion on
the mainland, his overlordship was to be extended over the islands,
including Corfu, the one island which had never come under his power.
♦Surrender of Parga. 1819.♦ The other points on the mainland passed,
not so much to the Sultan as to his rebellious vassal Ali of Jôannina;
but _Parga_ kept its freedom till five years after the general peace.
♦All Albania and continental Greece under the Turk.♦ Thus the Turk made
his last encroachment on Christendom, and held for a moment the whole
of the Greek and Albanian mainland. ♦The Ionian Islands under English
protection. 1815.♦ The islands meanwhile, tossed to and fro during the
war between France and England, were at the peace again made into a
nominal commonwealth, but under a form of British protection which it
is not easy to distinguish from British sovereignty. Still a nominally
free Greek state was again set up, and the possibility of Greek freedom
on a larger scale was practically acknowledged.
♦The Greek War of Independence. 1821.♦
It was only for a very short time that the Turk held complete
possession of all Albania and continental Greece. Two years after the
betrayal of Parga began the Greek War of Independence. ♦Extent of
the Greek nation.♦ The geographical disposition of the Greek nation
has changed very little since the Latin conquest of Constantinople;
it has changed very little since the later days of old Hellas. At
all these stages some other people has held the solid mainland of
south-eastern Europe and of western Asia, while the Greek has been the
prevailing race on the coasts, the islands, the peninsular lands, of
both continents, from Durazzo to Trebizond. ♦General Greek revolt.♦
Within this range the Greeks revolted at every point where they were
strong enough to revolt at all. ♦Extent of the liberated territory.♦
But it was only in the old Hellenic mainland, and in Crete and others
of the Ægæan islands, that the Greeks were able to hold their ground.
♦1829-1833.♦ Of these lands some parts were allowed by Western
diplomacy to keep their freedom. ♦Kingdom of Greece.♦ A _Kingdom of
Greece_ was formed, taking in Peloponnêsos, Euboia, the Kyklades, and
a small part of central Greece, south of a line drawn from the gulf
of Arta to the gulf of Volo. But the Turk was allowed to hold, not
only the more distant Greek lands and islands, but Epeiros, Thessaly,
and Crete. ♦Ionian islands added to Greece. 1864.♦ The kingdom was
afterwards enlarged by the addition of the Ionian islands, whose
nominal Septinsular Republic was merged in the kingdom. ♦Treaty of
Berlin. 1878.♦ By the Treaty of Berlin, Crete, which had twice risen,
was thrust back into bondage, but parts of Thessaly and Epeiros were
ordered to be set free and to be added to the kingdom. ♦Its promises
unfulfilled.♦ But even this small instalment of Greek emancipation has
not yet been carried out.
* * * * *
♦First revolt and deliverance of Servia. 1805-1812.♦
Between the first and the second establishment of the Ionian
commonwealth, Servia had been delivered and had been conquered again.
The first revolt made Servia a tributary principality. ♦Second revolt
and deliverance. 1817-1829.♦ It was then won back by the Turk and
again delivered. ♦1826-1829.♦ Its freedom, modified by the payment of
tribute and by the presence of Turkish garrisons in certain towns, was
decreed by the peace of Akerman, and was carried out by the treaty of
Hadrianople. ♦Withdrawal of Turkish garrisons. 1867.♦ Fifty years after
the second establishment of the principality, its practical freedom
was made good by the withdrawal of the Turkish garrisons. ♦Servia
independent with an enlarged territory. 1878.♦ The last changes have
made Servia, under a native dynasty, an independent state, released
from all tribute or vassalage. The same changes have given Servia a
slight increase of territory. ♦Servian territory left to the Turk.♦
But the boundary is so drawn as to leave part of the old Servian land
to the Turk, and carefully to keep the frontiers of the Servian and
Montenegrin principalities apart. That is to say, the Servian nation
is split into four parts—Montenegro, free Servia, Turkish Servia, and
those Servian lands which are, some under the ‘administration,’ some
under the acknowledged rule, of the King of Hungary and Dalmatia.
* * * * *
♦The Rouman principalities.♦
While Servia and Greece were under the immediate rule of the Turk,
the Rouman lands of _Wallachia_ and _Moldavia_ always kept a certain
measure of separate being. The Turk named and deposed their princes,
but they never came under his direct rule. ♦Union of Wallachia and
Moldavia. 1861.♦ After the Treaty of Paris, the two principalities,
being again allowed to choose for themselves, took the first step
towards union by choosing the same prince. Then followed their complete
union as the _Principality of Roumania_, paying tribute to the Turk,
but otherwise free. ♦Independence of Roumania. 1878.♦ The last changes
have made Roumania, as well as Servia, an independent state. Its
frontier towards Russia, enlarged at Paris, was cut short at Berlin.
♦Change of its frontier.♦ But this last treaty restored to it the
land of _Dobrutcha_ south of the Danube, thus giving the new state a
certain Euxine sea-board. Thus the Roumans, the Romance-speaking people
of Eastern Europe, still a scattered remnant in their older seats,
have, in their great colony on the Danube, won for themselves a place
among the nations of Europe.
* * * * *
Lastly, while Servia and Roumania have been wholly freed from the
yoke, a part of _Bulgaria_ has been raised to that position of
practical independence which they formerly held. ♦The Bulgaria of San
Stefano. 1878.♦ The Russian treaty of San Stefano decreed a tributary
principality of Bulgaria, whose boundaries came most nearly to those
of the third Bulgarian kingdom at its greatest extent. But it was to
have, what no Bulgarian state had had before, a considerable Ægæan
sea-board. This would have had the effect of splitting the immediate
dominion of the Turk in two. It would also have had the real fault
of adding to Bulgaria some districts which ought rather to be added
to free Greece. ♦Treaty of Berlin. | Division of Bulgaria.♦ By the
Treaty of Berlin the Turk was to keep the whole north coast of the
Ægæan, while the Bulgarian nation was split into three parts, in
three different political conditions. ♦Free.♦ The oldest and latest
Bulgarian land, the land between Danube and Balkan, forms, with the
exception of the corner ceded to Roumania, the tributary _Principality
of Bulgaria_. ♦Half-free.♦ The land immediately south of the Danube,
the southern Bulgaria of history—northern Roumelia, according to the
compass—receives the diplomatic name of _Eastern Roumelia_, a name
which would more naturally take in Constantinople. Its political
condition is described as ‘administrative autonomy,’ a half-way house,
it would seem, between bondage and freedom. ♦Enslaved.♦ Meanwhile in
the old Macedonian land, the land for which Basil and Samuel strove so
stoutly, the question between Greek and Bulgarian is held to be solved
by handing over Greek and Bulgarian alike to the uncovenanted mercies
of the Turk.
* * * * *
♦General Survey.♦
We may end our survey of the south-eastern lands by taking a general
view of their geographical position at some of the most important
points in their history. ♦800.♦ At the end of the eighth century we
see the Eastern Empire still stretching from Tauros to Sardinia; but
everywhere, save in its solid Asiatic peninsula, it has shrunk up into
a dominion of coasts and islands. It still holds Sicily, Sardinia, and
Crete, the heel and the toe of Italy, the outlying duchies of Campania,
the outlying duchy at the head of the Hadriatic. In its great European
peninsula it holds the whole of the Ægæan coast, a great part of the
coasts of the Euxine and the Hadriatic. But the lord of the sea rules
nowhere far from the sea; the inland regions are held, partly by the
great Bulgarian power, partly by smaller Slavonic tribes fluctuating
between independence and formal submission. ♦900.♦ At the end of the
next century the general character of the East-Roman dominion remains
the same, but many points of detail have changed. Sardinia and Crete
are lost; a corner is all that is left in Sicily; but the Imperial
power is acknowledged along the whole eastern Hadriatic coast; the
heel and the toe have grown into the dominion of all southern Italy;
all Greece has been won back to the Empire. But the Empire has now new
neighbours. The Turanian Magyar is seated on the Danube, and other
kindred nations are pressing in his wake. Russians, Slaves that is
under Scandinavian leadership, threaten the Empire by sea. ♦1000.♦
The last year of the tenth century shows Sicily wholly lost, but
Crete and Cyprus won back; Kilikia and Northern Syria are won again;
Bulgaria is won and lost again; Russian establishment on the Danube
is put off for eight hundred years; the great struggle is going on
to decide whether the Slave or the Eastern Roman is to rule in the
south-eastern peninsula. ♦c. 1040.♦ At one moment in the eleventh
century we see the dominion of the New Rome at its full height. Europe
south of the Danube and its great tributaries, Asia to Caucasus and
almost to the Caspian, form a compact body of dominion, stretching
from the Venetian isles to the old Phœnician cities. The Italian and
insular dominion is untouched; it is enlarged for a moment by Sicilian
conquest. ♦c. 1090.♦ Another glance, half-a-century later, shows the
time when the Empire was most frightfully cut short by old enemies
and new. The Servian wins back his own land; the Saracen wins back
Sicily. The Norman in Italy cuts down the Imperial dominion to the
nominal superiority of Naples, the last of Greek cities in the West,
as Kymê was the first. For a moment he even plants himself east of
Hadria, and rends away Corfu and Durazzo from the Eastern world, as
Rome rent them away thirteen centuries before. The Turk swallows up the
inland provinces of Asia; he plants his throne at Nikaia, and leaves
to the Empire no Asiatic dominion beyond a strip of Euxine and Ægæan
coast. ♦c. 1180.♦ Towards the end of the twelfth century, the Empire
is restored to its full extent in Europe; Servia and Dalmatia are won
back, Hungary itself looks like a vassal. In Asia the inland realm
of the Turk is hemmed in by the strong Imperial grasp of the whole
coast-line, Euxine, Ægæan, and Mediterranean. ♦c. 1200.♦ At the next
moment comes the beginning of the final overthrow; before the century
is out, the distant possessions of the Empire have either fallen away
of themselves, or have been rent away by other powers. Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Trebizond, Corfu, even Epeiros and Hellas, have parted away,
or are in the act of parting away. ♦1204.♦ Venice, its long nominal
homage cast aside, joins with faithless crusaders to split the Empire
in pieces. The Flemish Emperor reigns at Constantinople; the Lombard
King reigns at Thessalonikê; Achaia, Athens, Naxos, give their names
to more abiding dynasties; Venice plants herself firmly in Crete and
Peloponnêsos. Still the Empire is not dead. The Frank, victorious
in Europe, hardly wins a footing in Asia. Nikaia and Trebizond keep
on the Imperial succession, and a third Greek power, for a moment
Imperial also, holds it in Western Greece and the islands. ♦1250.♦
Fifty years later, the Empire of Nikaia has become an European power;
it has already outlived the Latin dominion at Thessalonikê; it has
checked the revived power of Bulgaria; it has cut short the Latin
Empire to the immediate neighbourhood of the Imperial city. To the
north Servia is strengthening herself; Bosnia is coming into being;
the Dalmatian cities are tossed to and fro among their neighbours.
♦1300.♦ Another glance at the end of the thirteenth century shows us
the revived East-Roman Empire in its old Imperial seat, still in Europe
an advancing and conquering power, ruling on the three seas of its
own peninsula, established once more in Peloponnêsos, a compact and
seemingly powerful state, as compared with the Epeirot, Achaian, and
Athenian principalities, or with the scattered possessions of Venice
in the Greek lands. But the power which seems so firmly established
in Europe has all but passed away in Asia. There the Turk has taken
the place of the Greek, and the Greek the place of the Frank, as they
stood a hundred years earlier. And behind the immediate Turkish enemies
stands that younger and mightier Turkish power which is to swallow up
all its neighbours, Mussulman and Christian. ♦c. 1354.♦ In the central
years of the fourteenth century we see the Empire hemmed in between two
enemies, European and Asiatic, which have risen to unexpected power
at the same time. Part of Thrace, Chalkidikê, part of Thessaly, a few
scattered points in Asia, are left to the Empire; in Peloponnêsos alone
is it an advancing power; everywhere else its frontiers have fallen
back. The Servian Tzar rules from the Danube to the Gulf of Corinth.
The Ottoman Emir has left but a few fragments to the Empire in Asia,
and has already fixed his grasp on Europe. ♦1400.♦ Before the century
is ended, neither Constantinople, nor Servia, nor any other Christian
power, is dominant in the south-eastern peninsula. The Ottoman rules
in their stead. The Empire is cut short to a corner of Thrace, with
Thessalonikê, Chalkidikê, and the Peloponnesian province which now
forms its greatest possession. Instead of the great power of Servia,
we see a crowd of small principalities, Greek, Slavonic, and Albanian,
falling for the most part under either Ottoman or Venetian supremacy.
The Servian name is still borne by one of them; but its prince is a
Turkish vassal; the true representative of Servian independence has
already begun to show itself among the mountains which look down on the
mouths of Cattaro and the lake of Skodra. Bulgaria has fallen lower
still; the Turk’s immediate power reaches to the Danube. Bosnia at one
end, the Frank principalities at the other end, the Venetian islands
in either sea, still hold out; but the Turk has begun, if not to rule
over them, at least to harry them. Within the memory of men who could
remember when the Empire of Servia was not yet, who could remember when
the eagles of Constantinople still went forth to victory, the Ottoman
had become the true master of the South-Eastern lands; whatever has
as yet escaped his grasp remained simply as remnants ready for the
gleaning.
♦1500.♦
We will take our next glance in the later years of the fifteenth
century, a few years after the death of the great conqueror. The
momentary break-up of the power of the Ottoman has been followed by the
greatest of his conquests. All now is over. The New Rome is the seat of
barbarian power. Trebizond, Peloponnêsos, Athens, Euboia, the remnant
of independent Epeiros, Servia, Bosnia, Albania, all are gathered in.
The islands are still mostly untouched; but the whole mainland is
conquered, save where Venice still holds her outposts, and where the
warrior prelates of the Black Mountain, the one independent Christian
power from the Save to Cape Matapan, have entered on their career of
undying glory. With these small exceptions, the whole dominion of the
Macedonian Emperors has passed into Ottoman hands, together with a
vast tributary dominion beyond the Danube, much of which had never
bowed to either Rome. ♦1600.♦ At the end of another century, we see all
Hungary, save a tributary remnant, a subject land of the Turk. We see
Venice shorn of Cyprus and all her Peloponnesian possessions. The Dukes
have gone from Naxos and the Knights from Rhodes, and the Mussulman
lord of so many Christian lands has spread his power over his fellow
Mussulmans in Syria, Egypt, and Africa. ♦1700.♦ Another century passes,
and the tide is turned. The Turk can still conquer; he has won Crete
abidingly and Podolia for a moment. But the crescent has passed away
for ever from Buda and from the Western isles; it has passed away for a
moment from Corinth and all Peloponnêsos. ♦1800.♦ At the end of another
century we see the Turk’s immediate possession bounded by the Save
and the Danube, and his overlordship bounded by the Dniester. His old
rivals Poland and Venice are no more; but Austria hems in his Slavonic
provinces; France struggles for the islands off his western shore;
Russia watches him from the peninsula so long held by the free Goth
and the free Greek. ♦1878.♦ Seventy-eight years more, and his shadow
of overlordship ends at the Danube, his shadow of immediate dominion
ends at the Balkan. Free Greece, free Servia, free Roumania—Montenegro
again reaching to her own sea—Bulgaria parted into three, but longing
for reunion—Bosnia, Herzegovina, Cyprus, held in a mysterious way by
neighbouring or distant European powers—all join to form, not so much
a picture as a dissolving view. We see in them a transitional state of
things, which diplomacy fondly believes to be an eternal settlement of
an eternal question, but of which reason and history can say only that
we know not what a day may bring forth.
[Long after this chapter was written, after the whole of it was
printed, after a great part of it was revised for the press, there
appeared the first volume of the great collection of C. N. Sathas,
Μνημεῖα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱσορίας, _Documents Inédits relatifs à
l’Histoire de la Grèce au Moyen Âge_ (Paris, 1880). In his preface
M. Sathas insists on two points. One is the Greek character of the
Eastern Empire throughout its whole being; that it had a Greek
side no one ever thought of denying. He brings together a good
many occasional instances, largely from unprinted manuscripts, of
the use of Ἕλλην and Ἑλλάς through the whole period of the Empire.
That the name came into rhetorical use by a kind of _Renaissance_
about the thirteenth century is undoubted. I brought together some
few instances in my Historical Essays, iii. 246, and the whole
history of Laonikos Chalkokondylas is one long instance. M. Sathas
brings several others from much earlier times. But they seem to me
to be mainly cases of the rhetorical use of an antiquated name,
such as is common among all nations. They do not seem to affect
the proposition that the regular national name of the Empire and
its people was always _Roman_. M. Sathas’ other point is somewhat
startling. It is that the Slavonic occupation of a large part of
Greece, as to the extent of which there has been much disputing,
but which I never before saw altogether denied, is all a mistake.
According to him the settlers were not Slaves, but Albanians,
called Slaves by that lax use of national names of which there
certainly are plenty of instances. I cannot undertake either to
accept or to refute M. Sathas’ doctrine during the process of
revising a proof-sheet. I can only put the fact on record that one
who has gone very deeply into the matter has come to this, to me at
least, altogether new conclusion.]
FOOTNOTES:
[24] Unless we except the momentary existence of the first Septinsular
Republic, to be spoken of below.
[25] The longer form Λογγιβαρδία clave to this theme, while the Greeks
learned to apply the contracted form Λαμπαρδοί to the Lombards of
Northern Italy.
[26] A temporary Bulgarian occupation seems clear from Einhard, Annals,
827, 828. But on the supposed existence of a Bulgarian duchy in the
present Hungary see Roesler, _Romänische Studien_, 201.
[27] It must be remembered that δεσπότης was and is a common Byzantine
title, with no worse meaning than _dominus_ or any of the words which
translate it.
[28] On this very singular, but very obscure, little state see our
own Benedict (ii. 199) and Roger of Howden (iii. 161, 269), and
the Ghibeline Annals of Placentia, Pertz, xix. 468. See also Hopf,
_Geschichte Griechenlands_, vi. 161.
[29] See above, p. 379.
[30] It is well to see this familiar title in Greek. The Duke (δοὺξ
Βενετίας) was δεσποτικῷ ἀξιώματι τιμηθεὶς, ἔχειν τε ἐξ ὅλου πρὸς τὸ
ὅλον ὃ τὸ τῶν Φράγκων ἐκτήσατο γένος τὸ τέταρτον καὶ τοῦ τετάρτου τὸ
ἥμισυ. George Akropolitês, 15. ed. Bonn.
[31] If this is what is really meant by _Laza_ or _Lacta_ in the Act of
Partition. Muratori, xii. 357.
[32] See the Venetian Chronicle in Pertz, viii. 29, 32. After the
Venetian conquest the Duke’s name is placed after that of the Emperor
in religious ceremonies. But we see how slight was the real hold of
the Empire on these distant dependencies, when we find that, on the
submission of Croatia and Dalmatia to Basil the Macedonian, the tribute
of the cities was assigned to the Croatian prince.
[33] _Negroponte_—a wild corruption of _Euripos_—is strictly the
name of one of the Latin baronies in Euboia, and has been carelessly
transferred to the whole island, as Crete used often to be called
_Candia_.
[34] Ἄσπρη θάλασσα, as distinguished from the Euxine, the μαύρη θάλασσα.
[35] Fallmerayer gives the name a Slavonic origin; Hopf and Hertzberg
make Μωραία a transposition of Ῥὡμαία. Neither derivation is
satisfactory; but either is better than the mulberry-leaf.
[36] _Grand Sire_, _Megaskyr_, = μέγας κύριος. See Nikêphoros Grêgoras,
vii. 5, vol. i. p. 239.
[37] See above, p. 388.
[38] See above, p. 283.
[39] See below, p. 425.
[40] See p. 141. It was Thessaly, less _Neopatra_ attached to Athens,
_Pteleon_ held by Venice, _Zeitouni_ by the Empire.
[41] ‘Basilissa Romæorum’ = Ῥωμαίων βασίλισσα. ‘Rom_æ_i’ is not
uncommonly used for the Ῥωμαῐωι of the East, as distinguished from the
‘Rom_an_orum Imperator’ of the West.
[42] See above, p. 377.
[43] See above, p. 420.
[44] He claimed (see Jireček, _Geschichte der Bulgaren_, p. 351)
to rule over the Greek, the Albanian, and the Servian lands, from
Hadrianople to Durazzo.
[45] The history of George Akropolitês gives a narrative of these wars
which is worth studying, if only for its close bearing on the most
recent events.
[46] See above, p. 157.
[47] See above, p. 158.
[48] On the origin of the name, see Roesler, _Romänische Studien_, 159,
218, 260. There is something strange in Constantine calling the Finnish
Magyars Τοῠρκοι, in opposition to the really Turkish Patzinaks. His
Τουρκία and Φραγγία are of course Hungary and Germany. De Adm. Imp. 13,
40. pp. 81, 173. ed. Bonn.
[49] Also called _Siebenbürgen_, a corruption of the name of the
fortress of _Cibin_, which has many spellings.
[50] I must have given far more faith to it than I do now when I
wrote p. 71. Roesler’s book, _Romänische Studien_, has since put the
whole matter in a clear light; nor can I think that his arguments are
at all set aside by the answer of Jung, _Römer und Romanen in den
Donauländern_. Innsbruck, 1877.