peoples of the balkans—the migration of nations—the illyrians—the thracians and scythians—hippocrates and galenus—the habits of the scythians—the origin of the hellenes—the arrival of the macedonians—philip of macedonia and alexander the great—the power of rome—the goths and theodosius—the advent of slavs and mongolians—the hungarians, petshenegs, and vlachs—balkan people in the fourteenth century—the armenians: their early history—tiridales, king of the armenians—turkish conquest of persia—armenia and the greek orthodox church—the kurds and armenians—the georgians—attempt to arouse armenia—nihilism in armenia—massacre of armenians—abdul hamid and the armenian question—disastrous armenian rising—future of the armenians—the albanians and their language—other names for the albanians—albanian characteristics—albania demands autonomy—the future of albania—the vlachs: their language and habits—king milutin’s effort to settle them.

in no other quarter of the globe are you likely to meet such a medley of human races as in the balkan peninsula, the south-east corner of asia perhaps excepted. certainly nowhere else in europe has there been such constant shifting of a population, such risings and wanings of divers factors in history, such a coming and going of migrant mortals.

before the gods of ancient hellas entered on their genial despotism, before man had become conscious of his own importance, and therefore recorded his doings and sayings, great forces were labouring in the vast swamps and forests of central europe and put forth one after another races of human beings who, emerging from darkness, sought the light and wandered towards the midday sun.

this subconscious movement led swarm on swarm of{260} migrants across the great rivers of europe, over the mountain-passes, into the genial southern plains, and accounted for the settlement of one race after another in the peninsulas of europe that stand out into the warm waters of the mediterranean sea.

more than any other, the balkan peninsula was sought by these wanderers. the aboriginal race in this part of europe were the illyrians, ’tis said; but little is known of them and they have left few traces—a word or two of their speech in the mixed language of the present-day albanians. more definite records remain of later races, before whom the illyrians were forced to make way. these also came from the north and belonged to the dolichocephalic aryans, who peopled italy and the balkan peninsula, worked out their destiny, and were subject to the same treatment they had meted out to those whom they had found in possession and displaced. of the peoples who stand recorded in ancient history the thracians and scythians were the most prominent. the former are said to have occupied the districts south of the lower danube, the latter lived on that river’s northern bank. herodotus suggests that the thracians were a people of some importance, occupying a large tract of country, and describes them as a tall, strong race, blue-eyed and fair-haired, in appearance like the ancient teutons. they were sufficiently interesting to cause historians of old to give details of their doings, to mention several of their more important tribes, such as the triballi, dardani, agathyrsen, and those who were found in asia, phrygians, lydians, moesians, and above all the trojans. the dacians were another tribe, and became more prominent as they entered into authenticated history under their king decebalus, who defeated the emperor domitian and forced imperial rome to pay tribute to him.{261}

the coast of greece cloud shadows chasing each other over the rocky promontories of hellas, whose sons have marched north towards constantinople.

the coast of greece

cloud shadows chasing each other over the rocky promontories of hellas, whose sons have marched north towards constantinople.

the scythians are less known, and some confusion about them existed among ancient historians. herodotus mentions two peoples of that name; they came into collision with each other in southern russia, near the ural mountains, the passes of which were the gates of europe for the invading mongols and other non-aryan races. galenus describes his scythians as mongols, hippocrates gives them all the attributes of teutons, and recent researches tend to show that galenus mistook the scythians he may have seen or heard of, and that hippocrates was nearer the truth about them. the data given by antiquarians so far suggest that the scythians were a long-headed race, and had many customs peculiar to the ancient teutons; they venerated the god of war in the form of a sword, they sought auguries in the interlacing boughs of trees, their legends bore some resemblance to the saga of the norse-folk, and they indulged in the playful habit of using the skulls of vanquished enemies as drinking-vessels.

it would seem that the scythians came from the country now known as silesia and were probably displaced by the teutons. those who made this people their special study as did worthy pomponius mela, maintain that the parthians were of the same race, had the same habits, spoke the same speech, and moreover had much the same fashions in dress. the scythians were clothed à l’allemande of the period, simply and chastely in shirt and trousers, the latter considered an enormity by earlier roman historians, who possibly found that the trouser crease of their day was as little in accord with artistic tradition as that of the present day.

one fact emerges from all the profound utterances of authorities on the subject, namely, that the scythians were not of mongolian extraction, and should under no circumstances be identified with the huns.{262}

i have already mentioned the illyrians, and have got no further in the matter of their descent than have any of the recognized authorities on that important subject. what information does exist about this people is chiefly negative; for instance, that they did not belong to the indo-german race, but to an older family which after a century or two of genteel poverty went under before the pushing young aryans.

there appears to be a great deal of doubt as to the date when the greeks or hellenes arrived upon the scene in the balkan peninsula. some say that they were the first arrivals, born there, in fact; others that they came wandering down from the north in relays, that the overflowing fount of humans in northern europe poured wave after wave of ces gens là over southern europe. be that as it may, it seems nevertheless probable that the hellenes were akin to the thracians and had many attributes in common with them. there are the crude paintings still extant, showing hellenes of the sixth century b.c., and these of men fair-haired and blue-eyed; again, leaving the artistic for the scientific standpoint—the ancients of hellas were dolichocephalic.

i have followed the fortunes of the hellenes in another chapter, and must now confine myself to generalities about the balkan people of all ages.

the people of hellas were very happy according to all accounts; their clothing was inconspicuous, their wants few, and they enjoyed a peculiarly pleasant entente with the gods and goddesses whom they evoked out of their own imagination, as well as from different phenomena which nature produces to foster our taste for the supernatural. they must have been a thoroughly lovable, imaginative, unpractical collection of philosophers, richly endowed with all the necessaries of life, such as wives, children, servants,{263} etc.; in fact, everything to make life worth living and philosophizing easy. how the times have changed since then! they changed suddenly, it appears, for ancient hellas, for their cousins, as they considered themselves, the macedonians, felt the need for expansion, “tatendrang” if they had only known it, and therefore broke in upon the daydreams of the dwellers in arcadia.

philip of macedonia led his army against the hellenes, the allied thebans and athenians, defeated them at cheironeia in 338 b.c., and forced them to acknowledge his dominion over them. his son, alexander the great, vanquished the thracians, defeated the thebans, who had revolted against his rule, and prepared for his victorious march through asia minor.

the hellenes made many an effort to throw off the macedonian yoke, but failed, and exchanged it for that of rome, after the last macedonian king had been defeated by the romans at pydna in 168 b.c. macedonia was divided up into four provinces, and was incorporated with the roman empire in 146 b.c. greece became the province of achaia. the northern balkan countries retained their independence until near the end of the first century b.c., when, by degrees, rome conquered all the people south of the danube, the moesii, raetii, and vindelicei, their lands forming the roman provinces of raetia and noricum.

it is usual to include roumania among the balkan states, though that kingdom does not consider itself one of them. trajan crossed the danube and entered what is now roumania, adding it to the roman empire as dacia trajana in a.d. 106.

some hundred and fifty years later another people came wandering down from the north, penetrating as far as the danube, to the great discomfiture of dacia, the goths, and they forced emperor aurelian to remove his army and{264} colonies to southward and westward, founding a new colony, dacia aureliana. the goths in their turn, hard pressed by the wild hordes of nomad mongolians, the huns, abandoned the province of dacia trajana, where they had been settled for a century, and crossed the danube, invaded thrace, defeated the emperor valens at adrianople, and made themselves peculiarly obnoxious to the peaceful people of the eastern empire, while the huns continued their raid westward. the goths in the meanwhile plundered right and left in thrace unchecked, because they had filled the hearts of the roman legionaries with fear, so that none would meet them in battle again. that wise emperor, theodosius i, knew how to manage them, even made them useful as allies, and contrived to make the balkan countries too uncomfortable for them. so the goths went elsewhere, and as gepidi occupied parts of transylvania, vacated by the huns on the death of attila, their king.

about this time the first slavs made their appearance. it seems that they had settled for a while in wallachia, whither they had wandered from southern russia. their language proclaimed them akin to the indo-german race, but there is reason to suppose that they had a strong admixture of the mongolian in them; they proved to be brachy-instead of dolichocephalic. as the huns had shown to the eastern races the gateway into europe, other mongolians streamed in after them, so we find the avari settling in transylvania, and the bulgars following them. of these latter more anon.

about four centuries after the first appearance of the bulgarians, some distant relatives of theirs forced their way into europe, the hungarians. it appears that they confined themselves to the left bank of the danube, moving westward till they finally settled in hungary; other ugric{265} races followed them, the petshenegs, and the cumanians, but these too kept to the northern bank of the great river. their descendants may still be found in parts of hungary. an entirely different people made its appearance shortly before the arrival of the petshenegs, the vlachs, a race of nomads of whom no one knows whence they came; they wander about the balkan peninsula still, for during all these centuries no one has managed to induce them all to settle down permanently.

from the tenth century till the fourteenth the balkan peoples, varied as they were, and are still, settled down to a more or less ordered existence, developing into nations, waging war against others, and behaving in much the same manner as they do to-day. i have treated them separately elsewhere. a great change came with the fourteenth century, when yet another race came out of asia, a people related to the magyars and the bulgars, but already mixed with various other elements, occupying a different intellectual plane, and moved by aspirations at variance with the ambitions of the people they visited, the turks.

i have told how the turks overran eastern europe in another part of this book, how they brought down the empire of byzant, crushed the smaller nations, and kept them in submission until they grew, like the seed, out of obscurity into light, insisted on their separate nationalities, and finally went to war with their oppressors, moving like the spirit of revenge, striking swiftly and surely till their guns thundered insistently on the outer defences of constantinople, at the lines of chatalja.

another people which plays an important part in that complex body, the ottoman empire, is the armenian race. their history is somewhat obscure, as they have never shown any talent for self-government, and, consequently, hold few records which throw any light on their past.{266} they are most respectably connected, claiming descent from japheth. mt. ararat, where the ark eventually landed, is in the northern part of the territory which they consider their country, and armenians are still to be found among the valleys at the foot of that historic eminence. the armenian name for their great ancestor is haik; they call themselves after him, and their land haiasdan.

in ancient days they lived within fluctuating frontiers, under several dynasties, probably a primitive race of shepherds, until alexander the great passed through their country in 328 b.c. and brought them into contact with the great world. after alexander’s fleeting visit they broke up into several small states, and were hardly conscious of political life; they certainly formed no political entity. thus they were easily absorbed into the roman empire, under lucullus and pompey, what time those great men passed through armenia on their campaigns against the tigranes. they were only nominally under roman domination, actually they were a prey to any despot who arose out of the prevailing anarchy to call himself king and establish some semblance of order. one of those monarchs marked the temporary union of those sons of japheth by a massacre of romans.

the gradual rise of persian power affected haiasdan, which was absorbed by persian shahs of the sassanid dynasty, one of whom defeated the emperor valerian. but diocletian broke persian rule in armenia, and set up tiridales as king over its people. this king looked with disfavour upon christianity, which had recently come to the people of armenia, and imprisoned its apostle, st. gregory the illuminator, in a dry well for the space of fourteen years, during which protracted period the light dawned upon tiridales, and he too became converted.

the persians became sufficiently powerful to take{267} armenia away from the eastern empire in the reign of theodosius ii, and appointed native governors over their new province, persarmenia. when islam spread over asia minor, armenia was torn in pieces during the wars between that force and the emperor of byzant, then became united under the dynasty of one ruben, and by alliances with the encroaching mongols, with the crusaders, and imperial byzant, contrived to maintain some semblance of independence. but fate overtook this unhappy people when ghevout was king over them, and had to abandon the struggle against the might of islam, ending his days as exile in paris towards the end of the fourteenth century. ever since then clouds of troubles have hung heavily over the armenians, bursting in furious storms of moslem fanaticism, drenching the land with the blood of christians, for those children of japheth never could unite for purposes of self-preservation, and have therefore been made to suffer whenever the ottoman arms or policy met with ill-success in other parts of the turkish empire.

like the sons of shem these descendants of japheth are most tenacious of their faith, their speech, written in cyrillic script, and their ancient customs, but they have shown little taste for les belles lettres, and have added little to the world’s store of literature. again, like the jews, they have a great gift for commerce and affairs of state; several armenians rose to high estate in the byzantine empire, witness leo v, one of the great emperors of the east.

the armenians were never in complete sympathy with the greek orthodox church, and separated from it early in the history of the greek empire; their country was so far removed from the influence of constantinople, and linguistic difficulties widened the breach caused by the failure of the delegates from the armenian communities{268} in attending the councils of the eastern church. in many matters of ritual and observance the divergence became more marked, and as the armenians laid more stress on retaining these than on combined action against their moslem rulers and the enemies of the christian faith, subsequent efforts at reconciliation have proved abortive.

the armenians, through their lack of political solidarity, have always been exposed to aggression from the fierce tribes beyond their elastic frontiers, and of these the kurds were the most formidable. the kurds are a race of iranian extraction, speaking a persian dialect, and, whether settled on the lands of other races, or wandering at large in them as nomads, have ever proved troublesome as neighbours. the armenians thought to protect themselves by entering into an understanding with these people, and by putting themselves under the protection of the kurds, chiefly in the eastern provinces of the district inhabited by the sons of japheth. the kurds had their own notions of protection, which they expressed by frequent robbery and pillage, varied by an occasional massacre. the turkish authorities, who had but a feeble hold over the kurds, seldom interfered in the interests of christian subjects; moreover, these latter were seldom at one, as instanced by the constant friction between the armenians and the georgians whose ancient church was influenced by rome in the time of the crusaders, and has in recent years been almost entirely absorbed into the fold of the roman catholic church.

when peter the great ruled over russia, and again during the reign of catherine ii, attempts were made, chiefly through external agencies, to arouse nationalist aspirations among the armenians. a college was opened in paris, and endeavoured to consolidate armenian interests and to make the voice of this people heard and{269} considered in constantinople. but the turks were not alarmed at this, as they well knew the armenian incapacity for concerted action, and had no reason to think an understanding between them and the phanar a likely event. so enthusiasm subsided, and the armenians, in spite of the peculiar protection afforded them by the kurds, and the arbitrary methods of turkish tax-gatherers, lived at peace with the porte and prospered greatly.

though the last russo-turkish war raised no particular enthusiasm among the armenians, the turks thought fit to take precautions against them, and resorted to massacres, so that the treaty-makers of s. stefano insisted on the insertion of a clause safeguarding armenian interests against the reprisals of kurds and circassians. a number of armenians had settled in russia, others belonged to those who lived in that part of their former country long since annexed by russia, and these people took kindly to nihilism, forming secret societies to foster their ambitions and make propaganda. secret societies, whatever their object, have always been a terror to the porte, so turkish feeling towards the armenians underwent a change.

the turks, themselves afraid of massacre at the hands of the armenians, met any such possibility by massacring armenians, and thus commenced that series of atrocities which induced the great powers of europe to intervene. this made the situation worse: musa bey, the notorious bandit chief, was indeed summoned to constantinople to answer for his share in the lurid transactions, was tried before a turkish court, which found him guiltless of all blame, and eventually acquitted, even commended him for his behaviour. thereupon armenian churches were desecrated as suspected of being secret armouries, and a small massacre, only some fifteen killed, attended this exhibition of turkish policy. the armenian patriarch,{270} ashikian, lodged a protest with the porte in 1890, and three years later the college of marsovan was burnt amidst scenes of horror. four years later a massacre on a large scale was arranged and executed; nine hundred armenians of the mountainous sasun district were murdered, because the tax-gatherers had so far been unable to penetrate into that almost inaccessible region. the armenians pointed out that if they were protected from the kurds a tax-collector’s visit might be worth the while, as matters stood the kurds had left nothing taxable.

by this time the armenian problem had become acute, and abdul hamid could think of no other method of solving it than by exterminating the people who had provoked it by their mere existence. so massacres became a recognized feature of the armenian question, even those who lived in constantinople were not spared, the capital and other towns, erzeroum, diabekr, bitlis, all contributing, until the number of victims to this system of statecraft amounted to about twenty-five thousand. to these must be added many who escaped the sword to perish from cold, hunger, and exposure in the following winter.

at last the armenians became exasperated, and decided on retaliation. in the spring of the following year, 1896, armenians attacked and exterminated several small turkish garrisons. they were incited to fresh endeavours by the false hopes raised by several european powers, and arranged a coup de main for the 26th of august. a secret society, calling itself dashnaktsutian, made a raid on the ottoman bank of constantinople at midday. the conspiracy must have been well known by the sultan’s secret police, for it failed completely, and all those who took part in this desperate venture were killed. a counter demonstration had been arranged by the government, for that very afternoon lazes and kurds were let loose{271} in the armenian quarters of pera and galata, haskeui and kum kapu; their victims numbered some six thousand killed. the armenian plot was meant to impress the western powers, and they were duly impressed—but nothing else happened.

there seems no likelihood of the armenians ever realizing their nationalist ambitions; they are scattered so widely over the ottoman empire, and for that reason alone cannot forgather for concerted action, as the bulgarians and others who live in closer community have succeeded in doing. history has shown that even when they did cluster together in their more or less definite geographical limits, they lacked solidarity, so the only hope for them is in individual effort, by which many have risen to importance. with the gradual weakening of ottoman rule, of late precipitate, the chances are that the armenians, with their great capacity for business, their talent for affairs, and their tenacity, will play a leading part in eastern europe and asia minor, now that they have risen above their kurd oppressors and have out-distanced their moslem masters.

another distinct nationality plays a prominent part in the political life of the turkish empire—the albanians. the learned have spent much time in discovering their origin, have written many books about them, and have come to no very definite results after all. some say they are descendants of the illyrians, the original inhabitants of the western peloponese, and try to prove their theory by philology. a most unreliable guide to the discovery of a nation’s antecedents, as proved by the bulgarians who, though not originally a slav race, yet speak a slav language. in the case of the albanians, philology is even more misleading, and arrives at less definite results, for very few traces are left of that forgotten tongue, illyrian,{272} in the language spoken by the albanians, a mixture of slav, roumanian, turkish, and modern greek, according to g. meyer, who speaks with authority.

another hypothesis is that the albanians are derived from the ancient thracians, who were dispossessed of their country by successive waves of immigrants, and took to the mountains. this theory must also be taken with reserve, as so many different races—greeks and latins, slavs and goths—have passed this way and left their impress. the albanians themselves will tell you that they are skipetari, eaglets, the sons of the eagle, and as they evidently wish to be considered offspring of that bird of prey, and lay claim to some of its alleged virtues, it is best to humour them, though the turks may call them arnouts, and the slavs describe them as arbanasi. popular opinion confines this people to the mountains of albania, where they lead a life of untrammelled feudalism; the latter suggestion is more or less correct, the former not so. there are probably about three hundred thousand albanians in the balkan countries, and of these about one hundred thousand inhabit the peloponese peninsula. they are to be found in greatest numbers among the mountains of the district named after them, but many live in greece, in fact, the population of the eastern and central parts of that kingdom is largely albanian.

the albanians certainly possess one virtue ascribed to the eagle—they are brave, and have shown their prowess on many occasions, notably during the wars of greek independence. those who know them describe them as pleasant company, courteous and hospitable, but easily roused to anger, obstinate and sensitive. this opinion is probably held by the turks, who have never succeeded in enforcing their peculiar methods of government on these free sons of the mountains.{273}

though the albanians are often divided among themselves, they invariably combine against an enemy from outside, be he pasha or tax-collector, and have thus been able to defy all attempts to bring their country under some semblance of modern government, even of the turkish variety.

when left to themselves they find plenty of occupation in blood feuds, inter-clan fighting, or an occasional raid across the loosely defined border.

the causes which have led slavs of the same race to separate and occupy hostile camps do not affect albanian unity on questions concerning their nationality. they are divided into two distinct sections, the geks and the tosks, and are again divided by three divergent creeds, islam, to which the majority of albanians belong, greek orthodoxy, which claims about two-tenths of them, and another tenth adhering to the church of rome. yet they combine, and have done so quite recently, thanks to the troubles attending the passing of ottoman rule from provinces that adjoin their country. the albanians have combined to some purpose, have declared themselves autonomous, were ready with a provincial government, and now invite their neighbours to leave them to manage their own affairs in their own way. this, by the by, they have always contrived to do in face of all efforts to bring them into line with modern ideas.

little is known of albania’s past history, though individual albanians have helped to make history for other nations; the descendant of an albanian soldier of the ottoman empire rules over egypt. but history has been in the making for the last month or so, and possibly, nay, probably, albania is about to enter the comity of nations, even as servia, bulgaria, and other former provinces of the osmanli have done.{274}

there is no reason to suppose that albania will fail where others have succeeded. no doubt their habits are not such as to render government, according to modern notions, an easy matter, but the same was possibly said of the highland clansmen some centuries ago, yet these make excellent law-abiding citizens. then the albanians are a highly intelligent race, and would use their gifts to other purpose than clan feuds when once they see an opportunity of taking part in the world’s work on a different footing from that to which turkish rule restricted them. after all, servia’s chances seemed poor, no outlet to the sea, cramped by neighbours none too friendly, yet that country has risen out of chaos, out of slavery and obscurity, to hasten the fall of the ottoman empire, and to open out fresh fields for its own economic expansion.

even the ingrained feudalism of the albanians will vanish under the modernizing influence of roads and railways, and their picturesqueness fade under the glamour of successful commercial enterprise. no doubt those days are yet some distance off when peace and prosperity will reign over the balkan peninsula, but even the albanians, individually very capable of perceiving where advantage lies, will be brought into the ordered state of affairs so dear to those kind neighbours, the great powers.

however, as the change is not likely to be rapid, europe will have to make up its mind to a good deal more turmoil before albania ceases to cause trouble in the balkans.

anatoli hissar the castle of asia, built by sultan mohammed i. here mohammed ii, the conqueror, sat and watched the growth of roumeli hissar, the castle of europe, in 1451.

anatoli hissar

the castle of asia, built by sultan mohammed i. here mohammed ii, the conqueror, sat and watched the growth of roumeli hissar, the castle of europe, in 1451.

yet another people are to be found in the turkish provinces of europe, wandering about with their herds among the divers nations who have settled there, but not of them. these are the vlachs, but they have many other designations, for the greeks are pleased to call them kambisi (from kampos), karaguli or karaguni (black coats), vlachopimeni, or arvanitovlachi; in albania they are{275} called cobani, in macedonia cobani, and by the bulgars vlasi, a name under which they stand recorded on medi?val servian monuments. the papers generally speak of them as koutzo-vlachs. “koutzo” means halting, lame, though the description seems inaccurate, for they are confirmed nomads, and cover a deal of ground during the year. they are chiefly shepherds, and they wander about macedonia, thessaly, and thrace in search of pasture for their black-coated sheep, from which derives the nickname crnovun?i, given them by the serbs. others, again, act as carriers in those districts unopened as yet by railways, leading strings of ponies over the defiles that separated servia and bulgaria from the turkish provinces until recent days. they seem to be of roumanian origin, and speak a language akin to that of roumania, which claims to protect them, and of their history little is known. they have always been wanderers, and never showed any inclination towards a settled existence. it has been tried on them by king milutin of servia in the beginning of the fourteenth century, and records of that time make mention of several vlack villages by the southern banks of the danube.

when the turks conquered servia these nomads vanished from their settlements, and no one knows whither they went. it is probable that they resumed their migratory habits in macedonia and thessaly, not visiting servia again until comparatively recent times, when the russo-serb war broke out in 1876. up to this date they are said to have sojourned in bulgaria, whither, it is stated, they wandered from epirus and thessaly, to escape from ali pasha’s heavy hand. a few, a very few, settled in macedonia, about monastir, krushevo, and at the foot of olympus. the vlachs appear to be a pleasant, harmless people, and absolutely indifferent to the troubles which have so long agitated the peoples of the balkans.{276}

now that the balkan provinces of turkey, where the vlachs have wandered for centuries, are passing into other hands, the status of this people is becoming a matter of interest. as the balkan nations, serbs, bulgars, and greeks are insisting so fiercely on their respective nationalities, roumania has thought fit to espouse the cause of the vlachs. no doubt this intention is born of a sincere desire for the welfare of those whom the roumanians consider kinsmen, but the idea is of political value in that it gives a reason for the modern tendency of claiming compensation, an innovation so forcibly introduced by the arrival of the s.m.s. “panther” off agadir.

it will be interesting to note to what extent the wandering vlachs will benefit by the protection of roumania, and what they themselves think of it. was it to safeguard their interests that roumania sent its one and only sea-going warship to swell the international fleet in the golden horn while the turkish empire in europe was falling to pieces?

i have heard the absence of a chinese man-of-war commented on during my recent stay in constantinople.