Roumania Past and Present
J >> James Samuelson >> Roumania Past and PresentPages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27
[Illustration: DACIAN TROPHIES. (FROM TRAJAN'S COLUMN.)]
[Footnote 97: According to certain writers, Transylvania was _Dacia
mediterranca_; the Banate, _D. ripensis_; and Roumania, _D.
transalpina_; but Smith (_Geography_, 'Dacia') gives those names to
divisions of Moesia after the withdrawal of the Romans from Dacia; and
later historians mate no reference to the divisions. Dicrauer (p. 103)
only refers to one or two leading colonies, and Roesler (p. 45) says
that Trajan did not subdivide his conquest at all, but that under
Antoninus Pius (168 A.D.) there existed three non-political
divisions: _D. Apulensis_, _D. Porolissensis_, and _D. malvensis._
Gibbon (chap. i. pp. 7 and 8) gives what he calls 'the natural
boundaries,' and says the province was about 1,300 miles in
circumference.]
[Footnote 98: Neigebaur (p. 43) gives a list of twenty-eight towns known
(and many doubtful ones) in Trajan's Dacia, built during the Roman
occupation. Of these the ruins of some still remain, and on the site of
others modern towns have been built, whose names vary but little from
the Roman appellations, _e.g._ Zernes, now Cernetz; Caracalla, Karakal;
Castra Severum, Turnu Severunul (where there is an old Roman tower);
Ardeiscus, Ardeish or Ardges; Pallada, Berlad; Kallatia, Galatz; Thermae
ad Medias, Mehadia.]
[Footnote 99: Carra, p. 3.]
[Footnote 100: As in the case of Britain; see Smith, _Geography_,
article 'Colonia.']
[Footnote 101: Carra takes his account from Eutropius, who says (Book
VIII. cap. 6): 'Trajan, when he conquered Dacia, transferred thither
from all parts of the Roman Empire considerable numbers of men to till
the fields and live in the towns. For by its long war under Decebalus
Dacia had been exhausted of its men.' he says nothing of the 'scum of
the towns.' But in Book IX. cap. 15, Eutropius, in speaking of the Roman
withdrawal from Dacia under Aurelian, says: 'He took the Romans away
from the cities and fields of Dacia, and planted them in the middle of
Moesia.']
[Footnote 102: Smith (Dacia) says it was evacuated between 270 and 275
A.D. Neigebaur and other German as well as French writers name
years between these two, the edict of Aurelian being dated, it is said,
274 A.D.; whilst Roesler (pp. 60-51) believes that the actual
withdrawal of the Roman army did not take place until 280 A.D.]
[Footnote 103: lxviii. 13. He says (after describing the bridge in
glowing terms): 'Trajan, fearing lest, when the Ister was frozen, the
Romans on the farther bank should be attacked, built it in order to
afford an easy passage for the troops; Adrian, on the other hand,
apprehensive that the barbarians, after having overcome those who
guarded it, would find it an easy means of penetrating into Moesia,
demolished the upper portion of it.']
[Footnote 104: Freeman (_General Sketch of European History_) says
269-270 A.D.]
[Footnote 105: Trebellius Pollio. Gibbon sets down the number of Goths
slain at 50,000.]
[Footnote 106: Vol. ii. p. 17. The other writers here referred to are
Pic, Roesler, Paget, Petermann, &c.]
[Footnote 107: Ibid.]
[Footnote 108: Vol. i. p. 330.]
CHAPTER X.
FROM THE EVACUATION OF DACIA BY AURELIAN (ABOUT 274 A.D.) TO THE END OF
THE BARBARIAN RULE (ABOUT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY).
The 'Barbarians'--Brief mention of them by Roumanian
historians--The Goths--Their settlement in Dacia--Defeat by
Theodosius and disappearance--The Huns--Their ferocity--Attila--His
successes--Deserted and overthrown by the Gepidae--His death, and
expulsion of the Huns--The Sarmatians--The Gepidae ally themselves
with the Byzantines--Defeated by the Lombards under Alboin--The
Avari--Settle in Dacia--Are defeated and dispersed by Priscus and
Heraclius--The Bulgari--Their origin and that of the
Slavonians--Their cruelty--Warlike habits--Severe punishment of
criminals--Superstitions--Their 'Chagan,' or chief
rider--Conversion to Christianity--Their chieftains--Improved
habits--Curious superstitions--Career of the Bulgari--Invasion of
the Eastern Empire and defeat by Belisarius--Supreme in Dacia,
Moesia, and Servia--Vicissitudes--Story of Krumus--Daco-Roman
princes--The Bulgarian territories annexed by Basilius to the Greek
Empire--The Ungri, or Hungarians--Their supposed origin--Their
cruelty and ferocity--Hallam's description of them--German account
of their savage mode of warfare--Ravage Europe--Settle in Hungary
and found a kingdom--Are driven over the Carpathians by the
Bulgari--(Note: Story of their contests with the chiefs Gellius,
Gladius, Mariotus, &c,--The anonymous notary of King Bela)--The
Patzinakitai--Scanty records concerning them--The
Wallachs--Controversy regarding their origin--Daco-Roman
descendants--Mediaeval accounts of their origin and character--Anna
Comnena--Bonfinius--AEneas Sylvius--M. Opitz--Their career in the
Danubian territories--Revolt in alliance with the
Bulgari--Foundation of the Wallacho-Bulgarian Empire by Peter,
Asan, and John--The historical _soufflet_--Recognition of the new
empire--Its duration--The Kumani--Their domination--The Teutonic
Knights and Knights of St. John--Interesting correspondence between
King Joannitz and Pope Innocent III.--Temporary conversion of the
Bulgarians to Rome--Downfall of the Wallacho-Bulgarian
Empire--Irruptions and retirement of the Tartars--End of the
barbarian age.
I.
If the reader will imagine a country somewhat larger than the United
Kingdom situated in a part of the European continent which renders it
accessible from almost every side, and can conceive of eight or nine
great hordes of armed savages tens or hundreds of thousands strong, with
many smaller ones, pouring intermittently, and even simultaneously in
some instances, into that devoted territory, and there alternately
burning and plundering or making slaves of each other or of the original
settlers, during a continuous period of more than a thousand years, then
he will have formed some idea of poor Roumania (or perhaps it would be
more correct to say of the territories north and south of the lower
Danube) as it existed between the end of the third and of the thirteenth
centuries.
It is not surprising that some of the historians of Roumania, who have
managed to fill volumes, should have slurred over what really
constitutes half the period of her national existence in a few pages,
nay even in some instances in a few lines; and that they should have
substituted what one writer has called 'brilliant declamatory
evolutions' for the conclusions of careful research. For the last method
sometimes leads to the discovery of discrepancies between standard
authors of fifty or a hundred years in the chronicle of events. For us
the history of the so-called dark ages in that part of Europe is full of
interest, inasmuch as the Danubian plains constituted the highway over
which the barbarians wandered who were the ancestors of a large
proportion of the existing population of Europe; and we have sought, in
the table appended to this work, to bring some kind of order out of the
chaos of events narrated by historians.[109] Beyond this, it is true, we
cannot do much to serve the student of history, and it is a matter of
regret that the character of this work necessitates our treating the
subject with such inconvenient brevity; but we must appeal to the
patience and good nature of our readers whilst we seek to give as much
interest as possible to a necessarily dry and tedious narrative.
For about a century after the withdrawal of the Roman legions, the
_Goths_, a people of whose origin and exploits we have already spoken,
ruled in Trajan's Dacia, except during a brief interval (327
A.D.) when Constantine, having built a bridge across the
Danube at or near Nicopolis on the southern, and Turnu-Magurele on the
northern bank, overran the country and once more incorporated it with
the Empire. This occupation was, however, of short duration. Finding
that he could not maintain his supremacy north of the Danube, and that
the Goths were even settling on the right bank, Constantine is said to
have established Roman colonies south of the Balkans, and, according to
some historians, it was from those settlers that the country has derived
its present name of Roumelia. That the Goths must have founded permanent
settlements in various parts of Dacia is obvious from the traces they
have loft behind them, notably in the neighbourhood of Buseu.[110]
Moreover, in the middle of the century (361 A.D.) they are said
to have embraced Christianity, although we hear shortly afterwards (370
A.D.) that their king Athanaric subjected the Christians to the
most cruel persecutions. At that time they were probably on more
neighbourly terms with the Romans, for when a new enemy, the Huns,
appeared in the east and threatened them with annihilation, many of them
were allowed by the Emperor Valens to cross the Danube and settle
peaceably on the right or southern bank. Shortly afterwards, however, we
find them first defeating and slaying Valens and then fighting in
alliance with the Huns (378) against the Emperor Theodosius, who
attacked them in Dacia. This is the last we hear of the Goths as such,
but a branch, the Gepidae, afterwards rose again and for a considerable
period dominated in Dacia.
[Footnote 109: See Appendix I.]
[Footnote 110: The reader will find most of the chief places named in
the course of this historical sketch indicated on the historical map,
but we have purposely refrained from making repeated references to it,
and even, in many cases, to authorities on history, where that would
interfere unnecessarily with the continuity of the narrative.]
II.
The _Huns_ who drove out the Goths and followed them in the occupation
of the country, are supposed by some to be of Scythian, by others even
of Chinese origin, and Gibbon has very graphically described their first
appearance and movements. 'The numbers,' he says, 'the strength, the
rapid motions, and the implacable cruelty of the Huns were felt, and
dreaded and magnified by the astonished Goths, who beheld their fields
and villages consumed with flames and deluged with indiscriminate
slaughter. To these real terrors were added the surprise and abhorrence
which were excited by the shrill voice, the uncouth gestures, and the
strange deformity of the Huns. These savages of Scythia were compared
(and the picture had some resemblance) to the animals who walked very
awkwardly on two legs, and to the misshapen figures, the Termini, which
were often placed on the bridges of antiquity. They were distinguished
from the rest of the human species by their broad shoulders, flat noses,
and small black eyes deeply buried in the head, and as they were almost
destitute of beards they never enjoyed either the manly graces of youth
or the venerable aspect of age.'[111] These were the beings who
devastated and dominated in Dacia for three-fourths of a century (375 to
about 453 A.D.), and others such as these, we may add, were
still harrying the peacefully disposed population six or seven hundred
years subsequently, when the ultra-barbarian _regime_ was about drawing
to a close.
But the rule of the Huns was not uninterrupted. Shortly after they
obtained possession of the Gothic kingdom in Dacia they were defeated by
the Emperor Theodosius I. (about 378), but from that time until the
reign of their King Attila ('the scourge of God') nothing of importance
is noted in their history. This monarch not only brought the whole of
Dacia under the yoke, but (about 443) he conquered Moesia, and pressed
the Romans so hard that Theodosius II. (408-450), as well as the Eastern
Emperor, were glad to make peace with him, by which he retained the
greater part of his conquests north of the Danube. It is impossible, nor
would it be legitimate here, to follow Attila through his victorious
career. All we need to mention is that when the tide was turning against
him, the vassal tribes, whom he had dragged through Europe as allies,
deserted him, and the Gepidae, a branch of the great Gothic nation,
helped to hasten his downfall; for, revolting under their chief Ardaric,
they not only defeated his army, but became masters of the whole of
Dacia. At the conclusion of the reign of Attila, who died or was
murdered about A.D. 453, the Huns were driven back into Asia,
whence they once more invaded Europe a few years later; but, although we
hear of them casually, in union with other tribes, more than a century
afterwards (about 564), they never recovered their power in Dacia, and
are of no further interest to us in this connection.
[Footnote 111: Vol. iv. pp. 258-262.]
III.
The reader will remember that even in the wars between the Romans and
Dacians other barbarian tribes took part. Of these the Quadi,
Marcomanni, and Sarmatians continued to harass the successors of the
first-named, and even to make irruptions into the Empire. The
_Sarmatians_ especially were very formidable, and from time to time they
settled in Dacia during the occupation of the Goths, giving both them
and the Romans much trouble. They were encountered by more than one
Roman army, and were driven back into and through Dacian territory; but
at length, about A.D. 375, Valentinian defeated them with great
slaughter, and we cease to hear of them in connection with Roumanian
history.
With the _Gepidae_, that branch of the Goths who defeated Attila, it was
otherwise. After the withdrawal of the Huns[112] they took possession of
Northern Dacia, and managed to obtain such a firm hold on the country,
that it was actually known to some of the older historians as 'Gepidia.'
There is, however, nothing of interest in their history. Sometimes they
were at war with their more powerful southern neighbours; anon they
formed alliances with them on advantageous terms, and aided them to keep
other tribes in check. The Roman Empire was now split into its Eastern
and Western divisions, and it was with the Byzantines that the Gepidae
made their treaties. These, however, were capable of rendering them
little effectual service at periods of grave danger, and when (about 550
A.D.) the Lombards, a warlike tribe who are believed to have
migrated southwards from the shores of the Baltic, in combination with
an Asiatic horde, the Avari, made inroads into their territory, the
Gepidae were quite incapable of making head against them. We have said
that the latter nation contracted treaties, offensive and defensive,
with the Eastern Empire, but it must not be supposed that either the
emperors or the barbarians were very constant in their attachments. At
one time we find some particular tribe in alliance with the emperors of
the East, assisting them to keep back new assailants; at another they
entered the armies of the Eastern emperors, to help them in their
attacks upon their Western rivals; then, again, it is two tribes
associated to root out and exterminate a horde in possession; and
shortly afterwards it may be that the tribes who were allied are arrayed
against each other. About the time named, the _Lombards_ and Avari, as
we have said, made inroads into the territories of the Gepidae, the
first-named being under the lead of a brave and fierce leader, Alboin,
and in a very short period (between 550 and 567 A.D.) they
managed not only to defeat the Gepidae, but so completely to break their
power, that some writers speak of them as being annihilated. Then it was
that the Emperor Justinian (527-565), fearing them as opponents, and
desiring them as allies, tempted the Lombards to enter his service; and,
bent upon conquest rather than upon becoming settlers in the land which
they had already acquired, these crossed over the Danube and left their
associates, the Avari, in undisturbed possession. The _Avari_ ruled
intermittently in Dacia from about A.D. 564 to 610-640, when,
venturing to cope with the Byzantine power, they were first encountered
and defeated by Priscus, a Greek general, and later on by the Emperor
Heraclius (610-641), and from that time their nation was gradually
dispersed.
[Footnote 112: Between 453 and 469 A.D. according to different
writers.]
IV.
But now we arrive at a period when there was some little interval in the
successive inroads of barbarians, and a breathing time for the peaceably
disposed inhabitants of Dacia; for the next race of wanderers who
entered upon the fertile plains of the Danube succeeded in holding their
ground almost as undisputed masters for three centuries. Later on, as we
shall find, they founded a second dynasty in combination with the
Wallachs; and, although their rule was troubled by the incursions of
other barbarians, and by wars first with the Byzantines and afterwards
with the Hungarians or Magyars, yet they managed with some intermission
to remain the governing power, and their descendants have ruled in
various localities even down to the present day.
But what makes the history of this tribe, the _Bulgari_, so interesting,
is not so much the domination which they exercised in the Danubian
provinces, as the insight which it gives us into the condition of the
people during the dark ages; and although we must content ourselves with
a brief sketch of their career and a few incidents selected from it, we
can confidently recommend our readers to prosecute the enquiry for
themselves, with the certainty of being repaid for their labour and
research. The origin of the Bulgari, or Bulgarians, like that of most of
the so-called barbarians, is more or less clouded in mystery. According
to some writers they were of Scythian origin, and comprised numerous
tribes, amongst whom the Wallachs, the Croats, and the Moravians are the
best known.[113] Gibbon says[114] that the Bulgarians and Slavonians
were a wild people who dwelt, or rather wandered, on the plains of
Russia, Lithuania, and Poland. They were bold and dexterous archers, who
drank the milk and feasted on the flesh of their indefatigable
horses.[115] Their flocks followed, or rather guided, their movements,
as it was in search of pasture for these that they roamed about from
place to place. They were practised in flight and incapable of fear.
Roesler is of opinion that they were an offshoot of the Huns, and in the
earlier period of their career, he says, they adopted the costume of all
the Ural races, and notably of the Avari. The hair of the head was shorn
off with the exception of a tuft. Their war-standards were horses'
tails; before a battle there was a muster, at which arms and horses were
inspected, and if any defects were discovered, the warrior who was
guilty was at once put to death. The day and hour of combat were fixed
by soothsayers, propitious signs were sought, and war-ditties chanted.
It was a custom to make a drinking-vessel of the skull of some famous
chieftain amongst the enemy when he was killed in battle. (We shall have
a notable example of this presently.) Any freeman or slave who strayed
beyond the boundaries of the territory was killed by the border-guard if
he was detected. Dogs and even human beings were offered as sacrifices.
Their sentences for the expiation of crime were as barbarous as the
people themselves. Noses and ears were cut off as the most ordinary
punishment. Polygamy was practised, and eunuchs protected the harem. The
ruler, who was called the 'Chagan,' had power of life and death over his
subjects. He alone sat at table during his meals; his 'court,' including
even his spouse, squatted around and fed upon the floor. In the seventh
century their religion was a mixture of heathenism and Mohammedanism,
and they were only converted to Christianity by slow degrees after they
had settled on the Danube and come into close contact with the Eastern
Empire.[116] Even then we find (about the middle of the ninth century)
that although the kings embraced Christianity, the great mass of the
people remained unconverted, and even resented the change of religion in
their rulers.
There is much more that is interesting in the customs of the Bulgarians,
especially when they had come under something like a settled government.
The nobles seem to have resembled our 'ealdormen' in the very earliest
phase of our history, and to have exercised considerable influence,
notwithstanding the absolutism of the ruling head. From living only in
tents of skins, a practice still adhered to in the warmer months, they
built wooden huts in winter. They clothed themselves in long robes, and
wore caps which were doffed reverentially in the presence of their
rulers. They fed on millet and on horseflesh, and drank mead and a
liquor extracted from the birch tree. Their punishments continued to be
most barbarous, quartering alive being a common practice. Their
superstitions were interesting. Serpents were 'taboo,' so was a hut
which had been struck by lightning, whilst the howlings of dogs and
wolves were good omens, significant of success or plenty.
We first hear of the Bulgari towards the close of the fifth century when
they were situated near the mouth of the Volga, from whence they moved
into Dacia. Meeting with little opposition and joined by other tribes,
they soon became formidable invaders of the Eastern Empire, and are said
to have carried their arms time after time through Thrace, Epirus,
Thessaly, as far as Peloponnesus in Europe, and into Asia Minor, until
at length they were met by Belisarius, one of the generals of Justinian,
probably about 538-540 A.D., who defeated and drove them back
over the Danube. Meantime they had come under the yoke of the Avari, and
it was not until the middle of the seventh century (about 678-680), when
that warlike tribe had been broken up by Heraclius, that the Bulgari,
under the leadership of a powerful chief Kuvrat, obtained the ascendency
in Dacia. This chieftain formed an alliance with Heraclius, and he and
his successor Asparich succeeded by their prowess in bringing not only
Trajan's Dacia, but also Moesia, and what is now Servia, under the
Bulgarian rule, and in founding a State which subsisted to the
beginning of the eleventh century.
Of the condition of the people under this _regime_ we have already
spoken, and there is too much similarity between its incidents and those
which preceded and followed, to justify our dwelling upon it at any
length. It consists of a series of victories over, or defeats by, the
Byzantine emperors. At one time we find the Bulgarians losing battle
after battle and their power on the wane; then we hear of a Bulgarian
chief going to Constantinople, embracing Christianity, and forming a
marriage alliance with a niece of the empress (Irene, 780-802). Next a
powerful and savage king, Krum or Krumus, comes to the throne (probably
reigning 807 to 820 A.D.), and commences hostilities against
the Emperor Nicephorus (802-811). Having defeated and slain him, he is
said to have illustrated the custom already referred to by making a
goblet of his skull. The succeeding emperor (Michael, 811-813) fared
little better, having suffered an ignominious defeat at the hands of
Krum, who pressed forward to the very gates of Constantinople. Thence,
after dictating terms of peace, he withdrew into his own territories,
taking with him, it is said, 50,000 Daco-Romans who had been made slaves
by the Byzantines, and settling them on the north bank of the Danube.
Krum died A.D. 820 or thereabouts.
Another feature in the history of the country, to which we shall refer
more fully hereafter, is the part taken by the dominant race for the
time being in the obstruction or promotion of Christianity, and in the
schism in the Catholic Church. At first we hear of little else than
persecution of Christians, and the successor of Krum is said to have
martyred one Bishop Emanuel, who was preaching the Gospel in his
dominions. Other Bulgarian chiefs or kings, however, courted the favour
of the Christian emperors and adopted their creed, until the country was
annexed to the Greek Empire in 1014 A.D.
A word or two more concerning the prominent events preceding the first
fall of the Bulgarians. About the end of the ninth century the
descendants of the Daco-Romans, recovering from the repeated blows they
had received by the successive barbarian irruptions and conquests, are
said once more to have rallied to power; and several chiefs or kings are
believed to have been of Daco-Roman origin. Of these Simeon (about 887),
Peter (? A.D.), and Samuel (about 976 A.D.), are
conspicuous. The first-named we find at war, first with the Grecian
Emperor Leo (893 A.D.), whom he defeated; then with the same
ruler and his allies the Ungri, under Arpad, their king. Finding himself
hard pressed, Simeon made peace with Leo, and turned his arms against
the Ungri, whom he defeated with great bloodshed and drove out of his
territories. (To the Ungri and their career we shall return presently.)
These feuds continued for a long period, and about 970 A.D. the
Bulgarians crossed the Balkans, but were beaten by the Greeks, whilst
two or three years afterwards the Greek emperor (or rather one of them,
for there were several pretenders to the throne), John Zimisces (? 972),
attacked Marcianopolis, the Bulgarian capital, and took the king, Boris,
prisoner. Before the end of the century another Bulgarian king, Simeon,
had fought the Greeks with varying success, but ultimately the Emperor
Basilius II. (1014 A.D.) completely annihilated the Bulgarian
army, and annexed the whole country as a province of the Greek Empire.
Thus ended the first rule of the Bulgarians.