[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 ma.s.s 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 n.o.bles 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 superst.i.tions 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 Msia, 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 ill.u.s.trated the custom already referred to by making a goblet of his skull. The succeeding emperor (Michael, 811-813) fared little better, having suffered an ignominious defeat at the hands of Krum, who pressed forward to the very gates of Constantinople. Thence, after dictating terms of peace, he withdrew into his own territories, taking with him, it is said, 50,000 Daco-Romans who had been made slaves by the Byzantines, and settling them on the north bank of the Danube.

Krum died A.D. 820 or thereabouts.

Another feature in the history of the country, to which we shall refer more fully hereafter, is the part taken by the dominant race for the time being in the obstruction or promotion of Christianity, and in the schism in the Catholic Church. At first we hear of little else than persecution of Christians, and the successor of Krum is said to have martyred one Bishop Emanuel, who was preaching the Gospel in his dominions. Other Bulgarian chiefs or kings, however, courted the favour of the Christian emperors and adopted their creed, until the country was annexed to the Greek Empire in 1014 A.D.

A word or two more concerning the prominent events preceding the first fall of the Bulgarians. About the end of the ninth century the descendants of the Daco-Romans, recovering from the repeated blows they had received by the successive barbarian irruptions and conquests, are said once more to have rallied to power; and several chiefs or kings are believed to have been of Daco-Roman origin. Of these Simeon (about 887), Peter (? A.D.), and Samuel (about 976 A.D.), are conspicuous. The first-named we find at war, first with the Grecian Emperor Leo (893 A.D.), whom he defeated; then with the same ruler and his allies the Ungri, under Arpad, their king. Finding himself hard pressed, Simeon made peace with Leo, and turned his arms against the Ungri, whom he defeated with great bloodshed and drove out of his territories. (To the Ungri and their career we shall return presently.) These feuds continued for a long period, and about 970 A.D. the Bulgarians crossed the Balkans, but were beaten by the Greeks, whilst two or three years afterwards the Greek emperor (or rather one of them, for there were several pretenders to the throne), John Zimisces (? 972), attacked Marcianopolis, the Bulgarian capital, and took the king, Boris, prisoner. Before the end of the century another Bulgarian king, Simeon, had fought the Greeks with varying success, but ultimately the Emperor Basilius II. (1014 A.D.) completely annihilated the Bulgarian army, and annexed the whole country as a province of the Greek Empire.

Thus ended the first rule of the Bulgarians.

[Footnote 113: Le Sage, Table 8.]

[Footnote 114: Gibbon, vol. vii. p. 104.]

[Footnote 115: This character is by some writers given to the Wallachs or Roumanians, and Bonfinius (Book IV.) says that their name is derived from certain Greek words indicating their skill in archery.]

[Footnote 116: Roesler, p. 234 _et seq._ It is necessary to add that Roesler derives much of his information from Turkish sources. (Appendix, pp. 359-361.) According to one writer, Abu-Ali-Ahmed Ben Omar Ibn-Dasta, the _settled_ Bulgarians were an agricultural people cultivating cereals, in whose villages were mosques, elementary schools, &c. Many, however, were heathens, who prostrated themselves whenever they met an acquaintance.]

V.

Of all the tribes or hordes of the East who made the devoted plains of the Danube their highway into Europe, there were none who have earned a character so notorious for rapine and cruelty as the _Ungri_, or Hungarians. Their origin is doubtful in the extreme, but it is probable that they were a Turanian race, and Roesler has found them an aboriginal home in Ugria, a country situated eastward of the Ural mountains and the river Obi.[117] Their savage nature, which long survived their advent into Europe, has been graphically described by several writers.

Roesler, who has carefully studied their early history, says that they were mare-milking nomads living in tents, that they ate the half-raw meat of game or fish without knives. Mare's milk appears to have been what we may call their temperance beverage; whilst stronger drinks were the blood of wild animals or of their enemies on the field of battle; and the hearts of the latter were considered a sovereign remedy for diseases.[118] Our own Hallam, in describing their appearance and ravages in Europe, calls them a 'Tartarian tribe' who moved forward in great numbers as a vast wave. Their ferocity, he says, was untamed; they fought with cavalry and light armour, trusting to their showers of arrows, against which the swords and lances of the European armies could not avail. 'The memory of Attila,' he adds, 'was renewed in the devastations of these savages, who, if they were not his compatriots, resembled them both in countenance and customs.'[119]

But the nation who suffered the most severely from their irruptions, and whose history reflects their ferocity the most faithfully, were the Germans. Fortresses were erected to check their inroads, but 'exultingly and with scorn these wild hors.e.m.e.n brushed past them, and as though they were in pursuit of game they picked off the peasant at the plough, or the soldier mounting guard upon the walls. Men, women, and children were captured wherever they were found; were coupled by the hair of their heads and driven in herds, like cattle, into Hungary. If a regular army moved out against them, they dispersed like the winds of heaven, and the joyful cry went up, "G.o.d be praised, they are gone;" but soon they reappeared to hara.s.s the retreating soldiery. The horrors of desolation and rapine were the condition most congenial to them; in these they revelled and rejoiced; and most happy were they when they could anoint their beards with German blood, or, casting their firebrands into the houses of G.o.d, could witness the devouring flames as they rose up into the skies.'[120]

Although in after times the Hungarians claimed the suzerainty over part or the whole of Wallachia (and we shall have occasion hereafter to refer to their relations with that country), their domination during the ninth and tenth centuries was of a very partial and transient character. They probably moved westward from the Ukraine at the beginning of the ninth century, and between the years 839 and 860 they were actively aggressive in Eastern Wallachia. They are said to have attacked Constantine, the Christian missionary, on his way through the district they occupied, but his venerable mien prevented them from doing him any injury. He is said not even to have allowed their cries to disturb him during prayer, in which he was engaged when they made their appearance. Towards the close of the century, as we have already said, they sustained a defeat at the hands of the Bulgarians, when, under their chief Arpad, they had formed an alliance with the Emperor Leo, who is said to have made peace with the enemy and left them in the lurch. After this they were driven into the Carpathians, A.D. 894, and, having first overrun the greater part of Transylvania, they commenced those aggressions into Germany, France, and Italy, which for a considerable period rendered them the terror of all Europe. At the end of the tenth century, having met with severe reverses and been compelled to withdraw into Hungary, they at length settled down under an established government. The first king was undoubtedly Stephen (997 or 1008 A.D.), and they annexed Transylvania, which up to that time had been a debatable territory, either about 1002 according to some writers, or, as others affirm, not until the time of Ladislaus the Holy (1078-1095 A.D.).[121]

[Footnote 117: Roesler, p. 156 _et seq._]

[Footnote 118: Roesler, p. 164 _et seq._]

[Footnote 119: Vol. i. p. 20. Hallam says, in a note _loc. cit._: 'In Italy they inspired such terror that a ma.s.s was composed especially deprecating this calamity, "Ab Ungarorum nos defendas jaculis."']

[Footnote 120: E. Duller, _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes_, p. 108.

Leipzig: Wigand. 1840.]

[Footnote 121: During their pa.s.sage across the Carpathians the Hungarians are said to have encountered and reduced to submission a number of petty chiefs and tribes, believed by certain writers to have been the descendants of Daco-Romans who had settled in those mountains many centuries previously. Amongst them 'Dukes' Gellius or Julius, Claudius, and Mariotus are mentioned. The chronicler of these events is known as the 'Anonymous Notary of King Bela' of Hungary, and his narrative is adopted by those modern writers who hold the view that the early princes of Wallachia descended from the Carpathians, whilst other writers, and notably Roesler, who denies that theory, throw discredit upon the whole story, and consider the writings of the 'anonymous notary' a fabrication. The bias exhibited by the different historians makes it impossible to arrive at any just conclusion on the subject.]

VI.

In studying the historical records of this time, the reader will frequently encounter the names of two tribes which will cause him considerable perplexity, namely, the _Patzinakitai_,[122] as they were called by the Greeks, and the _Wallachs_, who were variously called 'Vlaci,' 'Blaci,' 'Valachi,' 'Olachi,' &c. Of the former little can and need be said. They are sometimes called Romans; were dominant in certain parts of the country in the tenth, and probably also the eleventh, century; a.s.sisted the Bulgari to drive the Hungarians over the Carpathians, and were even strong enough to make war upon the Eastern Empire about the end of the eleventh century. About that time ineffectual attempts were made to christianise them, and the last we hear of them is at the close of the thirteenth century, when they were a.s.sociated with the Wallachs in the Carpathians, and probably gave their name to a district in which they were settled. They are believed, later on, to have migrated into Hungary, and cease to be named as a distinct people.

Concerning the Wallachs, however, who have played a most important part in Roumanian history, a good deal is known, but much is still obscure and the subject of heated controversy. First as to their origin. Some writers believe them to have been a branch of the Slaves; others think they were the Daco-Roman colonists of Msia, who, joining the Slaves, crossed the Danube with them, and that subsequently the fused races were known as Wallachs, who gradually spread themselves northward to the Carpathians. Other historians are silent about them until the foundation of the 'Wallacho-Bulgarian Empire,' and then they simply mention that the two races joined for the purpose of gaining their independence.[123] There are, however, certain historians of the middle agea who accord to them a direct Roman origin and say they were the descendants of the Roman colonists who managed to retain their language and their hold upon the soil throughout the dark ages, and in spite of the irruptions and pa.s.sage of the barbarian tribes of the north and east. This is now the view generally accepted.

As we have freely quoted the opinions of modern writers, many of whom, along with the authorities on which their views are based, are entirely unknown to the bulk of our readers, it is only fair that they should be made acquainted with the views of well-known historians who flourished nearer the time of which we are writing.

Anna Comnena says (between 1081 and 1118 A.D.): 'The Emperor Alexius commanded Caesar Nicephorus to enlist as many soldiers as possible by conscription; but not veterans; new men who had not yet been in campaigns. He instructed him as to the tribes from which he was to select his recruits, namely, from the Bulgarians and from amongst those youths who had become hardened by a pastoral life; who possess no settled habitations, but wander about from place to place; those who, in the vulgar tongue, are called "Wallachs" ("Blachos").'

Bonfinius enters into details of their history. He tells how Trajan conquered the Dacians; how the province was evacuated; but that the colonists had multiplied to such an extent that the repeated incursions of barbarians failed to exterminate them; and he adds that they adhere so tenaciously to their language that one would imagine they had fought for that rather than for their lives. 'Who would not be astonished,' he says. 'when he considers the deluges of Sarmatians and Goths, the irruptions of Huns, Vandals, and Gepidae, the incursions of Germans and Lombards, to find that traces of the Latin tongue should be met with amongst the Dacians and Getae, whom we now call Wallachs, because they are such good marksmen? The Roumanians are descended from the legions and colonists who were led into Dacia by Trajan and other emperors: they were called Wallachs from Pius of Flaccus (after a German p.r.o.nunciation), but by us, because they are such good marksmen.'

aeneas Sylvius (Pope Pius II., 1458) is still more explicit. In a few pithy sentences he gives the geography of Wallachia and Transylvania; the history of Dacia from the time of the Persian and Greek wars to the Roman conquest; the fall of the colony; the derivation of the name from Flaccus; and then he adds: 'The people even now speak the Roman language, but so mutilated that an Italian can hardly understand them.'

And not only did learned writers recognise the descent of the Wallachs from the old Roman colonists, but crowned heads referred to it in their communications with the Bulgarian chiefs and with one another, as we shall see presently. Lauriani, from whose work we have made these extracts, says that the Hungarian writers were nearly always silent on the subject, or spoke of it with the utmost bitterness. He, however, quotes two who, in treating of the various nationalities, admit that Moldavia and Wallachia contain the descendants of the Roman colonists who speak a perverted Latin. One of them gives an extract from a poem by Martin Opitz (1621), who describes the national dance of Wallachia, the Hora, or 'Chora' as he calls it. After speaking of the vicissitudes through which the people have pa.s.sed, he says of their language that the Roman tongue is still in vogue; and of the people who are dancing he says: 'The men, who are almost made (? clothed) upon the Roman model, are bad, but witty, think much and say little.'[124]

We have already made a brief reference to the influence of the barbarian rule upon the language and habits of the modern Roumanians, and it is very interesting to find that in the seventeenth century, when Opitz lived, this fact had already been noticed. Although it concerns chiefly the national sentiment of the Roumanians of to-day and is no doubt very fascinating for them, the enquiry still presents some interesting problems for readers of every nationality.

[Footnote 122: Modern French and German writers called them Petschenigues and Petschenegen.]

[Footnote 123: For further details concerning the Patzinakitai and Wallachs the student must consult the pages of Roesler, Pic, Engel, Lauriani, &c.]

[Footnote 124:

'Die Menschen, die noch jetzt fast romisch Muster tragen, Zwar schlecht, doch witzig sind, viel denken, wenig sagen.'

VII.

As the reader is already aware, the first domination of the Bulgarians in the Danubian provinces was followed by that of the Eastern Empire after the victories of Basilius at the commencement of the eleventh century, and as a change of rulers in those days usually meant a change of oppressors, it is not surprising to find, about a century and a half later, that all the populations were ready for revolt. Amongst these, the most numerous and influential were still the conquered Bulgarians and the Wallachs. The Wallachs are first distinctly mentioned in the time of Basilius, in whose armies they fought as allies or mercenaries.

Towards the end of the eleventh century they had spread widely; for mention is made of them as having settled all over the Balkan peninsula as far as Macedonia in the south, in Wallachia in the north, and in Moldavia, and perhaps even Bessarabia, in the north-east.[125] That is to say, they had either spread into those countries, or their ancestors had been there from the Daco-Roman period, and, having become amalgamated with successive tribes of barbarians, were now once more the dominant race. They must always have been great warriors, for we find them at one time making irruptions on their own account into the neighbouring territories, at others in alliance with the Eastern emperors against the Bulgari or the Hungarians; or, a.s.sociated with neighbouring tribes, warring against the last-named ruthless invaders.

And when, from about 1180 to 1200, the Greek power was approaching its dissolution, the people of the Danubian provinces were ripe for insurrection, and there were not wanting brave leaders to a.s.sist them in striking the blow for their independence. From the conflicting accounts of historians, neither the names nor number of those leaders, nor yet the precise events which led to the establishment of the new empire, are ascertainable with exact.i.tude. Either there were two Wallachian brothers, Peter and Asan, to whom a near relative of the Greek emperor Isaac Angelos (1185-1195) treacherously allied himself, or three brothers, Peter, Asan, and John. The origin of the revolt is undoubted; it arose from the levying of what the people deemed an unjust tax upon them, and probably the refusal of the emperor to admit them into his army as paid mercenaries, as in the case of other tribes. In order to obtain redress for these grievances, an emba.s.sy, comprising the two brothers Peter and Asan, went to Constantinople. They were admitted to the emperor's presence, but their requests were refused, and one of the brothers, having displayed too much warmth on the occasion, received a box on the ear, which may be said to have laid the foundation of the Wallacho-Bulgarian Empire, and expedited the fall of the Greek dynasty.

At first the revolt was unsuccessful, and the Wallachs and Bulgarians in alliance were obliged to retreat across the Danube (1187); but soon returning with a powerful army, in which a new tribe, the k.u.mani, were also represented, they succeeded in inflicting a defeat upon the Emperor Isaac (about 1193), who narrowly escaped with his life. Pressing on to Adrianople, the allies threatened to overwhelm the Eastern Empire, and the Emperor Alexius Comnenus was only too glad to conclude a peace with them (about 1199) and to recognise their independence.

[Footnote 125: Pic (p. 64) says the Roumanian Wallachs were first referred to in 970, and (p. 113) first mentioned north of the Danube in 1222.]

VIII.

The _Wallacho-Bulgarian_ Empire lasted, according to different authors, from sixty to one hundred years, and contemporaneously with it the _k.u.mani_ were also dominant in part of ancient Dacia; indeed, according to some writers, Trajan's Dacia was called the land of the k.u.mani. The information concerning the latter is very scanty. One writer says that as the 'Uzi' they were found on the banks of the Danube at the end of the eleventh century; others say they entered Moldo-Wallachia about 1046. About 1089 they are spoken of as in Transylvania, and the period of their domination is variously stated as between these dates and 1220-1246. They were probably converted to Christianity about 1220-1223.