THE OTTOMAN SULT.ÂNS AND CALIPHS, 1290-1924 AD

Islâmic Index

Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon

Copyright (c) 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

The Ottoman Sult.âns and Caliphs, Note 1

Not all who deny the existence of the Armenian genocide are Turkish, as I learned from e-mail recently. Anyone sincerely sceptical or confused about the matter should consult Death by Government (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1995, pp.209-239), by R.J. Rummel, one of the greatest living experts on mass murder. Rummel estimates the number of Armenians murdered in the main organized genocide program (there were others), from 1915-1918, as 1,404,000 persons. Some of the eyewitness testimony to this included reports by the American Ambassador to Turkey, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. (whose son, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., would be Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury), and by other American consular officials, at a time when the United States was still neutral in World War I. Morgenthau's account was published in 1919 as Ambassador Morgenthau's Story.

Return to Text

The Ottoman Sult.âns and Caliphs, Note 2

Nor should we disparage the endless pornographic fantasies that revolve around the Harîm of the Sult.ân's Topkapï Palace. Fascination with this is now often disparaged as "Orientalism," i.e. the projection of unrelated and hostile imaginings onto misunderstood institutions; but there is no doubt of the extraordinary and bizarre characteristics of the Imperial Harîm. If it was diverting for the Sult.ân, I don't see why it should not continue to be so to the curious modern. An honest and informed treatment of this can be found in Harem, The World Behind the Veil [Abbeville Press, New York, London, Paris, 1989], by a woman who grew up in Turkey, Alev Lytle Croutier, many of whose own relatives had lived in traditional harîms. The books contains photographs from the Ottoman era (including her relatives) as well as historical drawings and the sort of lush and sensual paintings by Western artists that infuriate the anti-"Orientalism" crowd. The image above is a 19th century photograph. It is given by Croutier [p.74], but I also remember it from many years ago in Time magazine, at the time that the Topkapï Harîm was first opened to the public.

Return to Text

The Shihâbî Amîrs
of Lebanon, 1697-1842 AD

The Shihâbî Amîrs
of Lebanon

Bashîr I 1697-1707

H.aydar 1707-1732

Mulh.im 1732-1754

Mans.ûr 1754-1770

Yûsuf 1770-1788

first Maronite Amîr, 1770

Bashîr II 1788-1840

overthrown by Britain
& Turkey, 1840

Bashîr III 1840-1842

direct Turkish Rule, 1842-1918;
French Rule, 1920-1943

Republic of Lebanon

Bishara al-Khuri President,
1943-1952

Camille Chamoun 1952-1958

Fuad Chehab 1958-1964

Charles Hélou 1964-1970

Sulayman Franjieh 1970-1976

Elias Sarkis 1976-1982

Amin Gemayel 1982-1988

Selim al-Huss 1988-1989

Elias Hrawi 1989-1998

Émile Lahoud 1998-present
The Golden Age of Lebanon is considered by many to have come in the reign of the Amîr Bashîr II Shihâbî. The Shihâbîs were originally Sunnî Moslems, but they came to rule an area dominated by the Druzes, practioners of a religious off-shoot of Islâm and regarded by many Moslems as apostates from Islâm. When the Amîrs themselves converted to Maronite Christianity, this effected an alliance, sometimes uneasy, between the largest communities in Lebanon, the Maronites and the Druzes, who stood in some danger of persecution by the orthodox Moslem Turkish authorites. Still symbolic of the success of this alliance and the prosperity of the period is the beautiful Bayt ad-Dîn (or Beit ed-Din, "House of Religion") Palace, begun by Bashîr II in 1788 and not completed for 30 years. Unfortunately, Bashîr II moved to consolidate his power through an alliance with Muh.ammad 'Alî of Egypt. This would have been an excellent strategy were it not for the intervention of Britain to drive the Egyptians out of Syria and restore Ottoman authority. Bashîr II was deposed in the process. The influence of France, especially, to protect the Christians in Lebanon, however, was not exerted successfully to preserve Lebanese autonomy, and tended to alienate the non-Christians anyway; and the Turks managed to rid themselves of the Shihâbîs altogether, which at times resulted in the persucution and even massacre of Christians. After Lebanese independence from France itself in 1946, Bayt ad-Dîn became a residence for the President of the Republic. For many years Lebanon prospered as the "Switzerland of the Middle East," and Beirut as the "Paris of the Middle East"; but by the 1970's the communal differences that had been a source of strength when the communities needed to unite against outside persecution began to be a source of weakness, as sometimes had happened before, when the communities fell out among themselves and the issue came to be the distribution of political privileges and patronage to each "confessional" community. Things were particularly destablized by the large number of Palestinian refugees, who had no political standing in Lebanon at all, and whose activities against Israel drew Israeli retaliation on Lebanon. Since the Maronites were politically and economically dominant, everyone united against them and full civil war broke out in 1975. This ended up bringing the Syrians into Lebanon in 1976. The Druzes, and much of the anti-Maronite cause, were led by the charismatic Kamal Jumblatt, whose assassination in 1977, widely rumored to have been ordered by the Syrians, symbolically ended the first phase of the Lebanese "troubles." The shakeup of the civil war then brought to the surface something new: The Shi'ite community, always the poor relation in Lebanese politics, predominant in the South and in the Beka'a Valley (areas originally peripheral to Mount Lebanon), had not only quietly grown into the largest community in Lebanon but now was thoroughly radicalized and activized, in a natural alliance with the Palestinians, and, ominously, with the more distant Shi'ite coreligionists, the Iranian Islâmic Revolutionaries.
The Israelis, who invaded Lebanon in 1982 to get rid of the Palestinians, more or less accomplished that task, with the PLO leaving for Tunisia, but then discovered, as the Syrians had already, that the communal rivalries of the Lebanese themselves, especially with the Shi'tes adopting Iranian suicide and terror tactics, made the place a tar baby for any outsiders who wanted to exert control by force. With the foreign powers chasened, the Lebanese began to patch things up with some needed political compromises; and as the 1990's progressed, some peace and prosperity seemed to be returning to the country. It remains to be seen, however, if a modus vivendi can be found to produce another golden age of communal alliance against the outside.

The Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon
Bashîr I	1697-1707
H.aydar	1707-1732
Mulh.im	1732-1754
Mans.ûr	1754-1770
Yûsuf	1770-1788
first Maronite Amîr, 1770
Bashîr II	1788-1840
overthrown by Britain & Turkey, 1840
Bashîr III	1840-1842
direct Turkish Rule, 1842-1918; French Rule, 1920-1943
Republic of Lebanon
Bishara al-Khuri	President, 1943-1952
Camille Chamoun	1952-1958
Fuad Chehab	1958-1964
Charles Hélou	1964-1970
Sulayman Franjieh	1970-1976
Elias Sarkis	1976-1982
Amin Gemayel	1982-1988
Selim al-Huss	1988-1989
Elias Hrawi	1989-1998
Émile Lahoud	1998-present

The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî
in Egypt, 1805-1953 AD

Egypt was abruptly pulled into modern history with the invasion of Napoleon in 1798. Although Egypt had been conquered by the Turks in 1517, the strange slave dynasty of the Mamlûks had continued and by Napoleon's time had reestablished de facto authority in the declining Empire. After the French were driven from Egypt in 1801, Muh.ammad 'Alî arrived, supposedly to reëstablish Turkish authority.

Brilliant, ruthless, farsighted, and probably the most important Albanian in world history, Muh.ammad 'Alî very quickly established his own authority instead. The final Mamlûks were massacred in 1811, and Muh.ammad 'Alî moved to create a modern state, and especially a modern army, for Egypt. In this he was as successful as any non-European power at the time. By the time the Greeks revolted against Turkey in 1821, it was Muh.ammad 'Alî who turned out to have the best resources to put down the revolution and was called on by the Sult.ân in 1824 to do so. He very nearly did, until Britain intervened and sank the Egyptian fleet at the Battle of Navarino in 1827. Frustrated in that direction, Muh.ammad 'Alî was successful in his conquest of the Sudan (1820-1822), probably advancing further up the Nile than any power since Ancient Egypt, though at a terrible cost to the Sudanese in massacre, mutilations, and slaving (of which the American boxer Cassius Clay was probably unaware when he adoped the name "Muhammad Ali" upon his conversion to Islâm). Egyptian interventions in Arabia in 1818-1822 and 1838-1843 very nearly exterminated the House of Sa'ûd and its fundamentalist Wahhâbî movement, which much later would create a united and independent Sa'ûdî Arabia.

The House of
Muh.ammad 'Alî
in Egypt

Muh.ammad 'Alî Pasha,
1805-1848

Ibrâhîm 1848

'Abbâs H.ilmî I 1848-1854

Muh.ammad Sa'îd 1854-1863

Suez Canal Started, 1859

Ismâ'îl 1863-1867

Khedive,
1867-1879,
d. 1895

Suez Canal Opened, 1869
Britain buys Khedive's
share in Canal, 1875

Muh.ammad Tawfîq 1879-1892

British Occupation, 1882

'Abbâs H.ilmî II 1892-1914,
d. 1944

British Protectorate,
1914-1922

H.usayn Kâmil Sult.ân,
1914-1917

Ah.mad Fu'âd I 1917-1922

King,
1922-1936

Fârûq 1936-1952,
d. 1965

Ah.mad Fu'âd II 1952-1953

Republic of Egypt, 1953-

Muhammad Naguib President,
1953-1954

Gamal Abdel Nasser 1954-1970

Anwar as-Sadat 1970-1981

Mohammed
Hosni Mubarak 1981-present
When Muh.ammad 'Alî moved into Syria in 1831, however, this was a threat to the authority and perhaps even the existence of the Ottoman Empire. When war broke out in 1839, Britain intervened to support the Empire and to throw Muh.ammad 'Alî out in 1841.

The House of Muh.ammad 'Alî in Egypt
Muh.ammad 'Alî	Pasha, 1805-1848
Ibrâhîm	1848
'Abbâs H.ilmî I	1848-1854
Muh.ammad Sa'îd	1854-1863
Suez Canal Started, 1859
Ismâ'îl	1863-1867
Khedive, 1867-1879, d. 1895
Suez Canal Opened, 1869 Britain buys Khedive's share in Canal, 1875
Muh.ammad Tawfîq	1879-1892
British Occupation, 1882
'Abbâs H.ilmî II	1892-1914, d. 1944
British Protectorate, 1914-1922
H.usayn Kâmil	Sult.ân, 1914-1917
Ah.mad Fu'âd I	1917-1922
King, 1922-1936
Fârûq	1936-1952, d. 1965
Ah.mad Fu'âd II	1952-1953
Republic of Egypt, 1953-
Muhammad Naguib	President, 1953-1954
Gamal Abdel Nasser	1954-1970
Anwar as-Sadat	1970-1981
Mohammed Hosni Mubarak	1981-present

The most formative subsequent event for Egyptian history was certainly the construction of the Suez Canal. Although Britain had nothing to do with the project, and it was the French Emperor Napoleon III who attended the lavish opening ceremonies, the collapse of Egyptian financies led to the purchase by Britain of all Egypt's shares in the Canal Company. This did not solve Egypt's financial problems, which got worse. The Khedive Ismâ'îl also wasted resources on disastrous campaigns against Ethiopia in 1875-1876. With its interests now in danger, Britain occupied Egypt, without French support, in 1882. Ironically, the Occupation was undertaken under Prime Minister William Gladstone, who was opposed to British Imperialism. He was not, however, going to endanger British finances just because the Khedive didn't know how to handle his.

This made Egypt a de facto part of the British Empire, indeed one of the most important parts, with the Suez Canal an essential strategic link between Britain and India. Some of the most colorful episodes in British Imperial history occured because of this. In 1881 a revolt had started in the Sudan, led by a man claiming to be the Apocalyptic Mahdî of Islâmic tradition. Gladstone was not going to spend British money, or Egyptian, in trying to suppress the rebellion. Consequently, Charles Gordon, known as "Chinese Gordon" for his part in putting down the Taiping Rebellion in China (1860-1864), and who had already been governor-general of the Sudan from 1877-1880, was sent back in order to evacuate the Egyptian garrison. Once there, he decided to stay and resist the Mahdî. By 1885 this insubordination stirred up public opinion back home and forced Gladstone to send a relief expedition; but it missed rescuing Gordon by two days, as the Mahdî's forces overran Khartoum and killed Gordon. This made Gordon one of the great heroes of the day, humiliated Britain, and resulted in the fall of Gladstone's government. However, the Sudan was, for the time being, abandoned. When the British returned in 1898, in the heyday of imperial jingoism, Lord Kitchener, with a young Winston Churchill along, calmly massacred the mediaeval army of the Mahdî's successor at the Battle of Omdurman, avenged Gordon, and made himself one of the immortal heroes of the British Empire too. Although formally in Egyptian service, Kitchener reconquered the Sudan as an Anglo-Egyptian "condominium." The theory of British and Egyptian joint rule in the Sudan continued until Sudanese independence in 1956, though between 1924 and 1936 the British didn't even allow Egyptian forces or authorities into the Sudan.

All this took place with Egypt still legally part of the Ottoman Empire. Right down until 1914 the Turkish flag was dutifully flown and Turkish passports issued. When Turkey repaid a century of British support by throwing its lot with Germany in World War I, however, the fiction came to an end, and Egypt de jure came under British rule as a Protectorate, with the Sult.ânate, abolished by the Turks in 1517, reëstablished. This was not popular in Egypt, and after the war Egypt did become a formally independent Kingdom. However, the British did retain Treaty rights to garrison and protect the Suez Canal; so, in many ways, the British Occupation of 1882 simply continued. There was little doubt of that once World War II started. Egypt, a legally Neutral country, was first invaded by Italy and then by Germany, with British forces meeting, fighting, and ultimately expelling them. Egypt at the time seemed no less a part of the British Empire than it had ever been. Egypt did eventually declare war on Germany, but not until February 24, 1945.

The end of Muh.ammad 'Alî's dynasty resulted from the humiliation of continuing British occupation, the mortification of Egyptian failure in the war against Israeli independence in 1948, and from the failure of King Fârûq, who was rather more successful as a playboy than as a leader, to deal with any of it. The army, soon led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, swept away the monarchy, got British forces to leave Egypt, and then won a great political victory when Britain and France (74 years late) reoccupied the Canal, Israel invaded the Sinai, and both the United States and the Soviet Union told them all to leave in no uncertain terms, in the Suez Crisis of 1956 (just as Soviet tanks were rolling into Hungary!). Thus, Egypt became a player in the Cold War, and the heritage of Muh.ammad 'Alî, the Ottoman Empire, and British imperialism faded rapidly.

Islâmic Index

Copyright (c) 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings
of Libya, 1837-1969 AD

The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings
of Libya

Muh.ammad as-Sanûsî 1837-1859,
Cyrenaica, 1841

Muh.ammad al-Mahdî 1859-1902

Ah.mad ash-Sharîf 1902-1916,
d.1933

Italian occupation, 1911

Muh.ammad Idrîs 1916-1949;
Amir,
1949-1951;
King,
1951-1969,
d.1983

Muammar Qaddafi dictatorship,
1969-present

Libya begins as two domains in the Ottoman Empire, Tripolitania in the west and Cyrenaica in the east. Eventually, lands in the deeper desert, Fezzan, were brought under control. Most of the desert, however, is uninhabitable. Cyrenaica entered history originally as a place of Greek colonies. It is mountainous and, especially in the past, reasonably well watered. Tripoltania clings to the Mediterranean coast around the city of Tripoli. Just a few miles down the coast from Tripoli is Labdah, Roman Leptis Magna, which was the home town of the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (b.145).

The Sanûsî Amîrs & Kings of Libya
Muh.ammad as-Sanûsî	1837-1859, Cyrenaica, 1841
Muh.ammad al-Mahdî	1859-1902
Ah.mad ash-Sharîf	1902-1916, d.1933
Italian occupation, 1911
Muh.ammad Idrîs	1916-1949; Amir, 1949-1951; King, 1951-1969, d.1983
Muammar Qaddafi dictatorship, 1969-present

This was a thinly populated backwater for the Turks, noteworthy mainly for Roman ruins and piracy (with U.S. Marines landing at Tripoli in 1801). It all achieved greater significance when Italy displaced the Ottomans in 1911 (ceded in 1912). Indeed, Libya became one of the most important strategic theaters of World War II. The Italians tried invading Egypt from Libya in September 1940 but by February 1941 had been thrown completely out of Cyrenaica, with 130,000 soldiers captured. Alarmed, Hitler sent Erwin Rommel with a couple of divisions to prevent the Italian position from collapsing completely. Rommel, however, went on the offensive. For more than a year, things surged back and forth, with Cyrenaica recovered, lost, and recovered again. By July 1942, Rommel was deep into Egypt, barely stopped at El Alamein, 60 miles from Alexandria. By then, however, the United States was in the War; and the strongly reinforced British began an offensive in October. They broke through and soon swept the Germans and Italians entirely out of Libya. Retreating into Tunisia, they were caught against the Americans who had landed in Morocco and Algeria in November.

After the War, Libya formally became independent in 1951, under the Sasûnî Amîr of Cyrenaica. The long lived King Idrîs was eventually overthrown in 1969. This was under the leadership of the erratic and megalomaniacal Muammar Qaddafi. Along with armed clashes with Egypt and Chad, Libya became a sponsor of terrorism. Blamed for a bombing in Berlin in 1986, Libya was bombed by Ronald Reagan in retaliation. Later blamed for a bomb that brought down Pam Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, sanctions were imposed on Libya until accused operatives were surrendered. This eventually happened, Qaddafi may have thought better of his ways, and sanctions were lifted in 2003. Meanwhile, Qaddafi had dressed up his dictatorship with an idiosyncratic political theory. Libya became the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya." Jamahiriya, similar to the Arabic word for "republic," jumhûrîya, was a term coined by Qaddafi for his political system, which was supposed to be a kind of direct, mass democracy, but is probably no more democratic than similar arrangements in the Soviet Union. Like Mao's little red book, Qaddafi produced a little green book. Qaddafi seems secure enough, like many other dictators (one thinks of Castro), but increasingly anachronistic (Castro, again).

Islâmic Index

Copyright (c) 2005 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

MODERN ROMANIA

Ottoman Successor States in the Balkans

Princes, Kings, and Presidents of România, Montenegro, Greece, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Armenia, and Georgia

"Romania" means the area in the Balkans and Middle East with successor states to the Mediaeval Roman Empire that was neither part of historic "Francia" (the land of the "Franks" to those in Islâm), which means Western, Central, and Northern Europe originally subject to the Latin, Roman Catholic Church in Rome, nor part of historic Russia in Eastern Europe, subject to the Russian Orthodox Church.

This will be an unfamiliar use of the name "Romania" for most, and the reason for it is explained in "Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History," "The Vlach Connection and Further Reflections on Roman History," and the "Guide and Index to Lists of Rulers." The double headed eagle of the Palaeologi symbolized the European and Asian sides of the Empire. This now represents a significant historical and cultural divide. The Asian side, and the center of the Empire at Adrianople and Constantinople, is still largely Turkish. This is a rather different Turkey from the Ottoman Empire, however, secularized and Westernized by Kemal Atatürk, with things like the Arabic alphabet actually outlawed, now hoping to join the European Union. On the European side, the successor states to Rome in the 12th and 13th centuries have reemerged. This is also the case to the east, where Georgia and Armenia, kept from the Ottomans by Russia, are now independent.

Thus, "Modern Romania" here means the modern successor states, first to Rome ("Romania" to itself, "Byzantium" to the historians), second to the Ottoman Empire, which in the 14th and 15th centuries established its domination over all former Roman possessions, and more, in the Eastern Mediterranean. As the Roman successors emerged in the 12th century, so do the Ottoman successors emerge in the 19th century. Familiar states from the earlier period are Serbia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, and even Bosnia. The earlier states of the Vlach speaking Romanians, Wallachia and Moldavia, continue from the past, subject to special achievements in Ottoman misrule, ultimately to unite as the modern state of România, the only country in Europe to preserve the proper name of the Roman Empire. Turkey is still the largest and most powerful state in the region.

Entirely new states are Montenegro and Greece itself. Montenegro, the "Black Mountain" (Qara Dagh in Turkish and Crna Gora in Serbo-Croatian), like many remote areas of the Ottoman Empire, began to drift out of central control as Turkish power went into its long decline. "Greece" itself was something that, in a sense, didn't exist in the Middle Ages. What the Ancient Greeks had called themselves, "Hellenes," came to be used in Late Roman times to mean Greek pagans. Greek Christians were "Romans," Rhômaioi in Greek. This distinction was maintained through the Middle Ages, and was remembered well into the 19th, if not the 20th, century (a Greek can still be Rum in Turkish). A modern Greece, Hellas, that was not an heir to Rome, was an entirely new phenomenon.

The politically, religiously, and culturally dominant language of Mediaeval Romania was Greek, whose alphabet today, however, is only used in Greece. For the same period the Armenian alphabet was in use by Armenians both in Romania and in the often separate kingdoms of Armenia. Under the Ottomans,

Europa est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam Romaniam, aliam Franciam, tertiam Russiam.
Europa 1. Romania 2. Constantinople

2. Francia 1. Rome

3. Russia 3. Moscow
Turkish was sometimes even written in the Armenian (as in the Greek) alphabet; but that era is long gone, and the Armenian alphabet today is only seen in the former Soviet Republic of Armenia and in Armenian exile communities, as in Syria, Lebanon, and the United States. The alphabet of the Christian Georgians dates from the same era as the Armenian, and now continues to be used in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. Both the Armenian and the Georgian alphabets, although based on Greek, have their own striking and distinctive styles. The conversion of the Slavs resulted in the introduction of a new alphabet, the Cyrillic, which has remained the alphabet of choice for Slavs who belong to Orthodox Churches, like the Serbs, Bulgarians, and Russians. When modern Romanian (Vlach) first began to be written, it also used the Cyrillic alphabet, but eventually both Romanian and Albanian (also for many centuries unwritten) were rendered in the Latin alphabet, which thus came to be used for spoken languages in the Balkans for the first time since Latin speaking Roman colonists, and the Imperial Court in Constantinople, would have used it many centuries earlier. Since one's alphabet usually went with one's religion in the Middle Ages, the Turks, and other local converts to Islâm, used the Arabic alphabet; and Jews, especially Jews arriving after Spain expelled them in 1492, used the Hebrew alphabet. We have already seen some exceptions to the religion rule, however. Orthodox Christian Churches could be found using different alphabets, Greek, Armenian, and Cyrillic (as well as, more distantly, Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopic), which already had introduced an ethnic or national dimension to the issue. This is also evident when the Orthodox Romanians and the largely Moslem Albanians turn to the Latin alphabet, neither with the slightest intention of entering into religious communion with Papal Roman (i.e. Frankish) Catholicism. The Turks themselves, directed by Kemal Atatürk, followed suit. The Jews of Turkey also fell into this, and it became possible to find Ladino, the language of the 15th century Jewish refugees from Spain, being written in 20th century Istanbul synagogues using the Turkish version of the Latin alphabet. Thus the ancient prestige of Latin Rome, and the modern dominance of Latinate Francia, has exerted itself in modern Romania over Orthodox Christianity, Islâm, and Judaism -- even while the old Hebrew alphabet is now used for Hebrew revived as a spoken language in modern Israel.

A characteristic of imperial states is an easy mixing of peoples and languages. They all have too much to fear from the imperial power for too much trouble to develop between them. When the heavy imperial hand is withdrawn, however, serious trouble can result. Thus, the end of the British Empire resulted in the partitions, amid war and massacre, of India, Palestine, and Cyprus. The decline of Turkish power similarly uncorked more than a century of conflict, continuing even in 2000, in the Balkans. Border areas end up with the most ambiguous identities and so can provoke the greatest conflict. Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had been swapped back and forth between Hungary and Romania and Serbia in the 12th and 13th centuries, and then were long held by the Turks, ended up with a mixed population of Croats (Latin/Catholic Christians), Serbs (Orthodox Christians), and Moslem Bosnians (Bosniacs). All, as it happened, spoke the same language, Serbo-Croatian, but written in different alphabets. The disintegration of Yugoslavia, with the lifting of the heavy imperial hand of Communism in the 1990's, led to terrible fighting, massacres, and atrocities, most famously carried out by the Serbs against the others, but not unheard of from the Croatians, Bosniacs, and Kosovar Albanians also. A famous bridge in Mostar in Herzegovina, which had linked, actually and symbolically, the Christian and Moslem parts of the city, was destroyed (evidently by Croatians) in the fighting. With a peace settlement patched up for Bosnia, the Serbs then turned their hand against the restless Albanian majority of Kosovo, which the Serbs regarded as the Serbian heartland but which had contained few Serbs for a long time. It is enough to make one yearn for the return of the Palaeologi. The first map above shows the situation in 1817, after the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812, rebellions by Serbia, and a final grant of autonomy to Serbia. The Ionians Islands had originally belonged to Venice but were seized by Britain in the Napoleonic Era and ceded to Britain by the Congress of Vienna.

Index

1. ROMÂNIA

Continued from "Rome and Romania," "Romanians"

WALLACHIA MOLDAVIA

Radu Mihnea Voivode,
Prince,
Governor,
1611-1616,
1623-1626

Leon Tomsa 1629-1632 Miron
Barnovschi
Movila Voivode,
Prince,
Governor,
1626-1629,
1633

Matei Basarab 1632-1654 Vasie Lupu 1634-1653

Constantine
Serban 1654-1658

Grigore Ghica 1660-1664

Serban
Cantacuzino 1678-1688

Constantine
Brancoveeanu 1688-1714 Constantine
Cantemir 1685-1693

Phanariot Greek Tax Farming

1716-1717,
1719-1730 Nicholas Mavrocordat 1711-1714

Stephen
Cantacuzino 1714-1716

1741-1744 Michael Racovita 1717-?

1735-1741,
1744-1748 Gregoy Ghica 1726-1733,
1774-1777

Constantine Mavrocordat 1741-1743,
?-1769

Russian right of intervention,
Treaty of Kuchuk Karinarji, 1774

Alexander
Ypsilanti 1774-1782 Alexander
Moruzi ?-1806

Constantine
Ypsilanti 1802-1806

Russian Occupation, 1806-1812

John Caragea 1812-1818 Scarlat Calimah 1812-1819

Alexander Sutu 1818-1821

Russian Occupation, 1828-1834;
Governor Count Kisselev

Alexander Ghica 1834-1842 Mihai Sturdza 1834-1849

Georghe Bibescu 1842-1848

Revolution in Wallachia, 1848;
Russian Occupation, 1848-1851;
Crimean War, 1853-1856;
Russian Occupation, 1853-1854;
Austrian Occupation, 1854-1857

Alexander John Cuza of Moldavia 1859-1866

Charles Eitel Frederick
of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen,
Carol I 1866-1881

King,
1881-1914

Russo-Turkish War, 1876-1878;
Russian Invasion, Romania proclaimed
independent, 1877;
Congress of Berlin, Romania Independent, 1878

Ferdinand 1914-1927

Michael 1927-1930,
1940-1947

Carol II 1930-1940

Ion Antonescu, pro-German dictator 1940-1944

Communist takeover, 1947

Constantin Parhon President, 1948-1952

Petru Groza 1952-1958

Ion Georghe Maurer 1958-1961

Georghe Georghiu-Dej 1961-1965

Chivu Stoica 1965-1967

Nicolae Ceauçescu 1967-1989, executed

Ion Iliescu 1989-1996, 2000-present

Emil Constantinescu 1996-2000

My source for the king lists was originally the Kingdoms of Europe, by Gene Gurney [Crown Publishers, New York, 1982]. Gurney has some errors and obscurities, but I have not found any other work that has put so much together in one volume. It is a shame that his list of the Princes of Wallachia and Moldavia is incomplete, but it also looks like it would be a very long list, since the Turks changed Princes frequently, and in earlier periods the succession may be imperfectly known. Recent heads of state are largely from the Regentenlisten und Stammtafeln zur Geschichte Europas by Michael F. Feldkamp [Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2002]. Feldkamp has a more complete treatment of Wallachia and Moldavia, but, unfortunately, only prior to the era shown here. The maps are based on The Penguin Atlas of Recent History (Europe since 1815) (Colin McEvedy, 1982), The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume II (Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, 1978), The Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia (John Channon with Rob Hudson, 1995), and various prose histories, such as The Ottoman Centuries (Lord Kinross, Morrow Quill, 1977).

The two maps, just above and to the right, show the situation (1) after the War of Greek Independence (1821-1829) and (2) after the Crimean War (1853-1856). To save Greece, all the Great Powers were drawn in against Turkey.

With Greek independence went increased territory for Serbia, autonomy for Wallachia and Moldavia, and border concessions to Russia.

In the Crimean War, Britain and France joined Turkey against Russia, with much of the fighting taking place, as one might expect from the name, in the Crimea. This pretty much preserved the status quo for Turkey, though the borders were extended against Russia along the Black Sea. One change we see, however, was the unification of Wallachia and Moldavia into the state of România.

1. ROMÂNIA
Continued from "Rome and Romania," "Romanians"
WALLACHIA	MOLDAVIA
Radu Mihnea	Voivode, Prince, Governor, 1611-1616, 1623-1626
Leon Tomsa	1629-1632	Miron Barnovschi Movila	Voivode, Prince, Governor, 1626-1629, 1633
Matei Basarab	1632-1654	Vasie Lupu	1634-1653
Constantine Serban	1654-1658
Grigore Ghica	1660-1664
Serban Cantacuzino	1678-1688
Constantine Brancoveeanu	1688-1714	Constantine Cantemir	1685-1693
Phanariot Greek Tax Farming
1716-1717, 1719-1730	Nicholas Mavrocordat	1711-1714
	Stephen Cantacuzino	1714-1716
1741-1744	Michael Racovita	1717-?
1735-1741, 1744-1748		Gregoy Ghica	1726-1733, 1774-1777
Constantine Mavrocordat	1741-1743, ?-1769
Russian right of intervention, Treaty of Kuchuk Karinarji, 1774
Alexander Ypsilanti	1774-1782	Alexander Moruzi	?-1806
Constantine Ypsilanti	1802-1806
Russian Occupation, 1806-1812
John Caragea	1812-1818	Scarlat Calimah	1812-1819
Alexander Sutu	1818-1821
Russian Occupation, 1828-1834; Governor Count Kisselev
Alexander Ghica	1834-1842	Mihai Sturdza	1834-1849
Georghe Bibescu	1842-1848
Revolution in Wallachia, 1848; Russian Occupation, 1848-1851; Crimean War, 1853-1856; Russian Occupation, 1853-1854; Austrian Occupation, 1854-1857
Alexander John Cuza of Moldavia	1859-1866
Charles Eitel Frederick of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, Carol I	1866-1881
King, 1881-1914
Russo-Turkish War, 1876-1878; Russian Invasion, Romania proclaimed independent, 1877; Congress of Berlin, Romania Independent, 1878
Ferdinand	1914-1927
Michael	1927-1930, 1940-1947
Carol II	1930-1940
Ion Antonescu, pro-German dictator	1940-1944
Communist takeover, 1947
Constantin Parhon	President, 1948-1952
Petru Groza	1952-1958
Ion Georghe Maurer	1958-1961
Georghe Georghiu-Dej	1961-1965
Chivu Stoica	1965-1967
Nicolae Ceauçescu	1967-1989, executed
Ion Iliescu	1989-1996, 2000-present
Emil Constantinescu	1996-2000

The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia have a continuous institutional history back to the 14th Century, which means that this table simply continues the table begun on the Rome and Romania page. Turkish rule, however, led to the practice of the appointment of Greek tax farmers, the Phanariots (from the Phanar section of Istanbul), as Princes. Their job was simply to get as much money out of the land as possible, both for the Sublime Porte (the Ottoman government) and for themselves (the reason to be a tax farmer). This was not good, or popular, for the Principalities, but not much could be done about it until Russian power began to be felt in the region. The Russian wars against Turkey in the 19th Century led several times to the occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia. After the Crimean War (18453-1856) and, for a change, Austrian occupation (1854-1857), and a bad experience with a local candidate for rule of the unified country, a European prince, as in Greece and Bulgaria, was brought in, Karl of Hohenzollern. The Congress of Berlin recognized Karl (Carol) and Romanian independence (1878). With the Allies in World War I, winning Transylvania from Hungary and Moldova from Russia -- Romania was the biggest long term winner of the War in the Balkans -- Romania, after much internal strife, switched to the Axis in World War II, losing Moldova to the Soviet Union (seized in 1940, actually, before Romania was a belligerent) and part of Dobruja to Bulgaria. While Moldova is now independent, I have not noticed any discussion of reunion with Romania.

Rejecting the Cyrllic alphabet and the Turkish influenced "Rumania" (or "Roumania") for the Latin alphabet and the pure Latin România, Romania can now claim that name as its own, with few remembering that it was the proper name of the Roman (and the "Byzantine") Empire. In the Middle Ages, "Romania" tended to refer to the contemporaneous extent of the Empire, i.e. Anatolia and the Balkans ("Asia and Europa" or "Rûm and Rumelia"). The modern state might be said to be "Lesser Romania" in contrast to that "Greater Romania"; but this might be considered insulting by Romanians (though intentionally no more so than "Lesser Armenia" in Cilicia) and so is not likely to catch on.

The mysterious history of Romance speakers in the Balkans, the Romanians and Vlachs, whose existence is not noticed until the 12th Century and whose language is not attested until the 16th, is treated separated in "The Vlach Connection and Further Reflections on Roman History." This is a story now charged with the nationalism both of Romania and neighbors like Hungary.

The marriages of the Romanian Royal Family quickly connected it to major European, especially British and Greek, royalty. Thus King Ferdinand was the grandson of a first cousin of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert (Ferdinand of Portugal, the brother of Augustus, Prince of Coburg, who was the father of Ferdinand of Bulgaria), and he married one of their own granddaughters, Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. King Carol II then married Helen of Greece, who was a great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria, through her mother Sophia, the sister of Kaiser Wilhlem II of Germany. All these connections, of course, profited the monarchy little in the conflicts of fascism and communism that had the country under one form of dictatorship or another from 1940 to 1989.

Mediaeval România

The two maps above show the situation before and after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. Note that by then Britain had ceded the Ionians Islands to Greece (1864). In 1875 rebellions started in Bosnia and then Bulgaria. The brutality with which these were suppressed aroused European opinion, and after some delay Russia declared war. With some hard fighting, the Russians ended up capturing Adrianople and arriving at the outskirts of Constantinople. The Treaty of San Stephano which ended the war mostly freed the Balkans, but the Great Powers didn't like it. The Congress of Berlin rolled things back a bit. Serbia, România, and Montenegro all became independent, with increases in territory, but Bulgaria was divided and merely allowed autonomy. Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Novipazar were made protectorates of Austria. The map looked much the same for many years, with Bulgaria annexing East Rumelia in 1885.

2. MONTENEGRO

Danilo I Petrovic Prince-Bishop,
1697-1737

Sava 1737-1756
d.1782

Vasili Coadjutor,
1756-1766

Stephen
the Little Coadjutor,
1766-1774

Sava Coadjutor,
1774-1782

Peter I 1782-1830

Peter II 1830-1851

Danilo II 1851-1860

Nicholas 1860-1910

King,
1910-1918,
d.1921

Union with Yugoslavia, 1918;
Independent, 3 June 3 2006

Filip Vujanovic President,
2006-present

The title of the orignal "Prince-Bishops" of Montenegro, vladika, means "lord, sovereign" or "archbishop." Possessing one of the oldest traditions of local autonomy under the Turks, and a charming Italian version of its name (for the "Black Mountain," Qara Dagh in Turkish and Crna Gora in Serbo-Croatian), in the 20th century Montenegro was nevertheless overshadowed by its ethnic big brother, Serbia. After World War I, King Nicholas was thrown out so that Montenegro could join Yugoslavia. And when Yugoslavia collapsed, Montenegro was the only former Yugoslav republic to stick with Serbia. Religiously and lingustically this is understandable, but the Montenegrans are ambivalent about the present Serbian government, neither entirely sympathetic nor entirely unsympathetic. Since Montenegro represents Serbia's only access to the sea, through the historic port of Kotor (Cattaro in Italian, obtained from Austria after World War I), the fear is that, should the Montenegrans decide to go their own way, the Serbs would use force, with enough local support to make resistance abortive.

2. MONTENEGRO
Danilo I Petrovic	Prince-Bishop, 1697-1737
Sava	1737-1756 d.1782
Vasili	Coadjutor, 1756-1766
Stephen the Little	Coadjutor, 1766-1774
Sava	Coadjutor, 1774-1782
Peter I	1782-1830
Peter II	1830-1851
Danilo II	1851-1860
Nicholas	1860-1910
King, 1910-1918, d.1921
Union with Yugoslavia, 1918; Independent, 3 June 3 2006
Filip Vujanovic	President, 2006-present

Nevertheless, Montenegro voted for independence in 2006 and seems to have successfully made the transition, recognized by many governments and admitted as a member of the UN. This leaves Serbia as the last state in Yugoslavia.

1908 was a big year in the Balkans. Bulgaria became independent and Austria annexed most of its protectorate from the Congress of Berlin. In Turkey, the Sultan, "Abdul the Damned," was overthrown by the Young Turks, whose impetus, unfortunately, was more merely nationalistic than liberal. Meanwhile, Greece was able to add Thessaly (1881, with adjustments in 1897). A rebellion on Crete led to autonomy (1898) as a prelude to Greek control (1912).

3. GREECE

Greek War of
Independence, 1821-1829

Alexander Ypsilanti leads revolt,
1821-1828

Treaty of London, Britain,
France, & Russia support
Greek independence,
Battle of Navarino,
Egyptian fleet sunk, 1827

Count Kapodistrias regent,
1827-1830

Russian War on Turkey,
1828-1829;
Peace of Adrianople, 1829,
London Conference, 1830,
recognition of
Greek Independence

Otto of Bavaria King,
1832-1862

George I of Denmark 1863-1913

Constantine I 1913-1917,
1920-1922

Alexander 1917-1920

George II 1922-1924,
1935-1941,
1946-1947

Republic, 1924-1935

Pavlos Konduriotis President,
1924-1926,
1926-1929

Theodoros Pangalos 1926

Alexandros Zaimis 1929-1935

German Occupation, 1941-1944

Paul 1947-1964

Constantine II 1964-1973,
exile 1967

Military Dictatorship, 1967-1974

Giorgios Zoitakis 1967-1972

Giorgios Papadopoulos 1972-1973,
President,
1973

Phaidon Gizikis 1973-1974

Republic, 1974

Michael Stasinopoulos 1974-1975

Konstantin Tsatsos 1975-1980

Konstantin Karamanlis 1980-1985,
1990-1995

Christos Sartzetakis 1985-1990

Konstantin Stephanopoulos 1995-present

3. GREECE
Greek War of Independence, 1821-1829
Alexander Ypsilanti	leads revolt, 1821-1828
Treaty of London, Britain, France, & Russia support Greek independence, Battle of Navarino, Egyptian fleet sunk, 1827
Count Kapodistrias	regent, 1827-1830
Russian War on Turkey, 1828-1829; Peace of Adrianople, 1829, London Conference, 1830, recognition of Greek Independence
Otto of Bavaria	King, 1832-1862
George I of Denmark	1863-1913
Constantine I	1913-1917, 1920-1922
Alexander	1917-1920
George II	1922-1924, 1935-1941, 1946-1947
Republic, 1924-1935
Pavlos Konduriotis	President, 1924-1926, 1926-1929
Theodoros Pangalos	1926
Alexandros Zaimis	1929-1935
German Occupation, 1941-1944
Paul	1947-1964
Constantine II	1964-1973, exile 1967
Military Dictatorship, 1967-1974
Giorgios Zoitakis	1967-1972
Giorgios Papadopoulos	1972-1973, President, 1973
Phaidon Gizikis	1973-1974
Republic, 1974
Michael Stasinopoulos	1974-1975
Konstantin Tsatsos	1975-1980
Konstantin Karamanlis	1980-1985, 1990-1995
Christos Sartzetakis	1985-1990
Konstantin Stephanopoulos	1995-present

The revolt of Greece against the Turks was one of the sensations of the 19th century, drawing partisans, like Lord Byron, from far and wide. Against the Ottomans alone, the Greeks could well have been successful, but the Sultan called in Muh.ammad 'Alî, who had modernized the Eyptian army enough that the rebellion was being suppressed. This was too much, however, for "civilized" opinion. Not only the Russians, the traditional protectors of Orthodox Christians in Turkey, but Britain and France, inspired by all that Classical Oxbridge learning, moved to help the Greeks, sinking Muh.ammad 'Alî's fleet at Navarino in 1827. They say that the ships are still visible at the bottom of the bay, right by the island of Sphacteria, where the Athenians defeated the Spartans early in the Peloponnesian War, and just south of "Sandy Pylos," where a great Mycenaean city supplied wise Nestor to the Greek forces at Troy.

The house of Denmark supplied most of the kings of modern Greece. The kingship itself contained an interesting ambiguity, since the Greek word basileus only meant "king" in Classical Greek. In mediaeval Greek, basileus was used by the Emperors of Romania to translate Latin imperator, i.e. "emperor." So which was it? Was the ruler of Greece merely the King of the Hellenes, or the Emperor of the Romans (Rhômaioi)? When the Greeks tried to seize a large part of western Asia Minor from the Turks in 1920, it looked like restoring the Empire was the objective. Unfortunately, Turkey remained, and remains, fundamentally stronger than Greece, and the Greek invasion only provoked the expulsion of all Greeks from the mainland.

Politically, Greece has swung back and forth in the 20th century. Whether the monarchy was a good thing was often in doubt, as it was briefly abolished in the 20's and almost not reinstituted after World War II. Then the Army took over in 1967, creating a dictatorship that lasted until 1974. King Constantine II tried to organize a counter-coup against the dictatorship, but then fled the country when he failed. Eventually the dictators abolished the monarchy. When democracy was restored, after a stupid attempt to overthrow the government of Cyprus (provoking a Turkish invasion), the Greeks nevertheless seemed to think that Constantine had not been sufficiently vigorous in opposing the dictatorship, so the monarchy was not restored. Since then, Greece seems to have made a speciality of electing anti-American, socialist governments, long after that made any sense either geo-politically or economically. A good example of recent foolishness was a nationwide strike on May 17, 2001, with 10,000 protesters marching on the Parliament in Athens. Protesting what? Well, the Greek state pension system is nearly bankrupt, and the Government is considering reforms, like cutting benefits and increasing the retirement age (to 65). Even the socialist government, however, might have anticipated the offense to the Greek sense of entitlement that this would cause.

This kind of thing was all bad enough, but then 60 Minutes reported (6 January 2002) that the Greek government, and especially the dominant Socialist Party, appeared to be tolerating a radical leftist terrorist organization, "17 November," that had been responsible for bombings and murders for years. Not a single member of this organization had been arrested or even identified by the government, even though unmasked members raided a police station for weapons and could easily have been described. When members of the Greek press were threatened for reporting on the organization, and police closed the investigations even of murder cases against them, one began to wonder if a sort of leftist death squad had come into existence in Greece. This boded ill for the future of Greece, not only economically, but even as a functioning democracy. Now, however, this situation is looking up. Perhaps under pressure to straighten things out if Greece wanted to host the 2004 Olympics, the government now has arrested many members of "17 November," and the suspects have been spilling details about the membership and operations of the organization [Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, August 7, 2002, "Toppled From Their Pedestal"]. The actual popularity of the group now has been damaged by the very willingness of its members to inform and cooperate in order to avoid harder sentences. Happily, the 2004 Olympics came off without incident.

Although the Greek monarchy is now gone, the Greek Royal family remains impressively connected to two of the most important centers of contemporary European royalty. The heirs of the British monarchy are now all descendants, through Prince Philip, of King George I of Greece; and all the Greek Royal Family itself is descended from both Queen Victoria and the Emperor Frederick III of Germany. Then Constantine II's sister Sophia married Juan Carlos of Spain, who was able to do in Spain what Constantine wasn't able to in Greece -- restore democracy. Now the heir of Spain, Philip (Filipe), is a descendant of Kings George, Constantine I, and Paul of Greece. One might gather from this diagram that the throne of Britain is due to pass the House of Denmark and Greece, or, more precisely, the House of Schleswig- Holstein- Sonderburg- Glucksburg; but on marrying Elizabeth, Prince Philip renounced his rights to the Greek throne and his connection to the Greek Royal family, taking the name of his mother's family, Battenberg/Mountbatten, so this connection is obscured. Now that royalty is more a matter of international celebrity than of political power, Greece, by blaming Constantine for a bunch of military dictators, is really missing out on its share of space in People magazine. This may seem like an absurdly trivial consideration, but Greece depends heavily on foreign tourism; and foreign tourism depends heavily on international perception and publicity. Space, free space, in People magazine means millions of dollars in business for Greece. Instead, Greeks still have these ridiculous demonstrations for socialism (not to mention the frightening terrorist activity) and nurse their historic grievance against Turkey.

A real basis for the latter concerns Cyprus. In 1974 the Greek generals tried to annex Cyprus to Greece. This provoked a Turkish invasion and the de facto partition of the Island (and, happily for Greece, the overthrow of the generals). The Turks even set up a separate Turkish Cypriot Republic, which is recognized by no one in the world but Turkey. What this all really meant was that the effort to maintain Cyprus as a bi-national Republic, since independence from Britain in 1960, had failed utterly. The obvious solution would seem to be a real partition of the island with the Greek and Turkish parts annexed, respectively, by Greece and Turkey. Since the Turks took rather more of the island than was warranted by the Turkish percentage of the population (with Turkish settlers now introduced to fill the space), Greece could expect a territorial adjustment in exchange for international recognition of Turkish separation. For some reason, however, the international community still seems to expect a restoration of the bi-national Republic. With no real pressure on Turkey, however, and no prospect of it, the bi-national Republic is certainly dead and buried, and the realistic solution is not even being addressed.

Conspicuous Americans of Greek origin in recent days have been the stunning actress Melina Kanakaredes, of the late NBC drama Providence, and the comedienne, actress, writer, and producer Nia Vardalos, whose 2002 movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, was an unexpected and astonishing success, with over $200 million in domestic boxoffice. The movie good naturedly pokes fun at the father's old world paternalism and exaggerated nationalistic claims (e.g. that the Japanese word kimono is actually of Greek origin), a familiar phenomenon in Greek nationalism.

As noted above, it is now largely forgotten in Greece, and entirely outside of it, that in the Middle Ages the Greeks called themselves "Romans" (Rhômaioi), because, as it happens, they were. For many centuries Hellênes, which the Ancient Greeks had called themselves, and now the modern Greeks again, meant pagan Greeks. The history of Mediaeval Greece is thus found with that of Rome and Byzantium.

In the shadow of the Napoleonic Wars and a Russian war with Turkey, Serbia began the Balkan independence movement against Turkey with a long revolt that led to an Ottoman grant of autonomy. The rivalry of the two leaders of the revolt, Milosh Obrenovic and "Black" George Petrovic, however, led to a century of sometimes bloodly conflict between their two families, culminating in a coup in 1903 when King Alexander I was murdered. The Congress of Vienna in 1878 granted Serbia full independence, and the status of a Kingdom followed shortly. The Serbian dream was not just to unite all Serbian speakers remaining in Bosnia, Montenegro, Hungary, and Turkey, but all of the "Southern Slavs," including the Croatians, Slovenians, and perhaps even Bulgarians. In the aftermath of World War I, which began with the Serbian inspired assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo, this dream was realized in the establishment of Yugoslavia, which contained all the Southern Slavs except for Bulgaria, which had its own fiercely separate traditions and ambitions. Macedonia, however, had been wrested from Bulgaria in the Second Balkan War (1913). These benefits were substantially due to the Russians, to whom the Serbs looked as the protectors and patrons of the Orthodox Slavs. World War I formally began when Russia declared war on Austria to protect the Serbs. The flags of both Serbia and Yugoslavia are like the tricolor flag of Russia, with just a different arrangement of the stripes. The ethnic tensions between Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Slovenes and Croatians (and others), however, manifested themselves both in World War II, when the Germans found willing allies in the Croatians, and with the Fall of Communism, when the growth of democracy unmasked the separatist hostilities again. Yugoslavia broke up, with bitter fighting, atrocities, and "ethnic cleansing" as the various communities and new states sought to secure territory.

Former Yugoslav
Republics

Slovenia

Croatia

Bosnia Herzegovina

Macedonia

Montenegro
Although all the groups have been guilty of offenses, the consenus of international observers and investigators, not to mention the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, seems to be that the Serbs, seeking to maintain a dominant position and initially with a military advantage, are more guilty than others, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo. The future remains uncertain, as NATO/UN peacekeeping forces are the only thing that seems to restrain the violence from breaking out again in Bosnia, and the status of Kosovo is open, as Serbs flee the retaliation of the Albanians, which has extended to vandalizing churches and monasteries, and the Albanians have no interest in being returned to Serbia. All the now stands between "Yugoslavia" being just Serbia is the continued adherence of Montenegro. The two countries are no different ethnically, linguistically, or religiously. All that is different is history, which is enough to fuel a Montenegran independence movement, which succeeded in 2006. Yugoslavia has now been reduced to just Serbia again.

The map for 1912 gives us the situation right before the Balkan Wars. Turkish holdings in Europe still extend all the way to the Adriatic, including Albania which, although largely Moslem, has already been restless for independence.

4. SERBIA & YUGOSLAVIA

George Petrovic,
Kara ("Black") George leads revolt,
1804-1813

Milos Obrenovic leads revolt,
1815-1817;
Prince,
1817-1839,
1858-1860

Milan I 1839

Michael 1839-1842,
1860-1868

Alexander Karadjordjevic
(Karageorgevich) 1842-1858

Milan II Obrenovic 1868-1882

King,
1882-1889

Alexander I 1889-1903,
murdered

Peter I
Karadjordjevic 1903-1921

King of Yugoslavia,
1919-1921

Alexander II Regent,
1918-1921

1921-1934

Peter II 1934-1945

Paul Regent,
1934-1941

German & Italian Occupation, 1941-1943
German Occupation, 1943-1945

Communist takeover, 1945

Ivan Ribar 1945-1953

Josip Broz Tito 1953-1980

Lazar Kolisevski 1980

Cvijetin Mijatovic 1980-1981

Sergej Kraiger 1981-1982

Petar Stambolic 1982-1983

Mika Spiljak 1983-1984

Veselin Ðuranovic 1984-1985

Radovan Vlaikovic 1985-1986
Sinan Hasani 1986-1987
Lazar Mojsov 1987-1988
Raif Dizdarevic 1988-1989
Janez Drnovsek 1989-1990
Borisav Jovic 1990-1991
Stjepan Mesic 1991
Branko Kostic 1991
Dobrica Cosic 1992-1993
Zoran Lilic 1993-1997
Srdjan Bozovic 1997
Slobodan Milosevic 1997-2000
Vojislav Kostunica 2000-present

4. SERBIA & YUGOSLAVIA
George Petrovic, Kara ("Black") George	leads revolt, 1804-1813
Milos Obrenovic	leads revolt, 1815-1817; Prince, 1817-1839, 1858-1860
Milan I	1839
Michael	1839-1842, 1860-1868
Alexander Karadjordjevic (Karageorgevich)	1842-1858
Milan II Obrenovic	1868-1882
King, 1882-1889
Alexander I	1889-1903, murdered
Peter I Karadjordjevic	1903-1921
King of Yugoslavia, 1919-1921
Alexander II	Regent, 1918-1921
1921-1934
Peter II	1934-1945
Paul	Regent, 1934-1941
German & Italian Occupation, 1941-1943
German Occupation, 1943-1945
Communist takeover, 1945
Ivan Ribar	1945-1953
Josip Broz Tito	1953-1980
Lazar Kolisevski	1980
Cvijetin Mijatovic	1980-1981
Sergej Kraiger	1981-1982
Petar Stambolic	1982-1983
Mika Spiljak	1983-1984
Veselin Ðuranovic	1984-1985
Radovan Vlaikovic	1985-1986
Sinan Hasani	1986-1987
Lazar Mojsov	1987-1988
Raif Dizdarevic	1988-1989
Janez Drnovsek	1989-1990
Borisav Jovic	1990-1991
Stjepan Mesic	1991
Branko Kostic	1991
Dobrica Cosic	1992-1993
Zoran Lilic	1993-1997
Srdjan Bozovic	1997
Slobodan Milosevic	1997-2000
Vojislav Kostunica	2000-present

Former Yugoslav Republics
Slovenia
Croatia
Bosnia Herzegovina
Macedonia
Montenegro

Mediaeval Serbia

The Balkan Wars all but eliminated Turkey in Europe. In the First War (1912-1913), everyone attacked Turkey, which even lost Adrianople to Bulgaria. Serbia was going to annex Albania, but the Great Powers required that it become an independent state. The Serbs were not happy about that, and Bulgaria wasn't happy about its share either. So the Second War (1913) featured everyone against Bulgaria, which lost Macedonia to Serbia, Adrianople to Turkey, and some territory south of the Danube to România. Meanwhile, Italy had been at war with Turkey in 1912 and had obtained Libya and, on this map, the Dodecanese Islands.

5. BULGARIA

Russo-Turkish War, 1876-1878

Alexander of
Battenberg Prince,
1879-1886

Ferdinand of
Saxe-Coberg-Gotha Prince,
1887-1908

King or Czar,
1908-1918

Boris III 1918-1943

Simeon II 1943-1946

Cyril Regent,
1943-1944

Communist takeover, 1946

Vasil Petrov Kolarov 1946-1947

Mintscho Naitschev 1947-1950

Georgi Damjanov 1950-1958

Dimitar Ganev 1958-1964

Georgi Traikov 1964-1971

Todor Schivkov 1971-1989

Petar Mladenov 1989-1990

Schelju Schelev 1990-1997

Petar Stojanov 1997-2001

Georgi Parvanov 2001-present

5. BULGARIA
Russo-Turkish War, 1876-1878
Alexander of Battenberg	Prince, 1879-1886
Ferdinand of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha	Prince, 1887-1908
King or Czar, 1908-1918
Boris III	1918-1943
Simeon II	1943-1946
Cyril	Regent, 1943-1944
Communist takeover, 1946
Vasil Petrov Kolarov	1946-1947
Mintscho Naitschev	1947-1950
Georgi Damjanov	1950-1958
Dimitar Ganev	1958-1964
Georgi Traikov	1964-1971
Todor Schivkov	1971-1989
Petar Mladenov	1989-1990
Schelju Schelev	1990-1997
Petar Stojanov	1997-2001
Georgi Parvanov	2001-present

Bulgaria was the last of the mediaeval Balkan states to regain complete independence from Turkey. Although usually regarded as a Kingdom, rather more was implied when King Ferdinand (a second cousin of Edward VII of England) also called himself "Tsar." He is actually supposed to have carried around the vestments (obtained from a theatrical costumer) of a Roman (/Byzantine) Emperor. This was no less than what most of the successor states wanted, but the Bulgarians came closest to the physical heart of mediaeval Romania in the First Balkan War (1912-1913) when they occupied Adrianople and drew near Constantinople. This advantage, however, was lost in the Second Balkan War (1913), when Bulgaria took on all the other belligerents from the First War, largely in a dispute with Serbia over Macedonia (where a dialect or near relative of Bulgarian was spoken), and was overwhelmingly defeated. Adrianople went back to Turkey, Macedonia went to Serbia, and other territories went to Greece and Romania. Still stinging from this defeat, Bulgaria threw its lot with Germany in World War I, which cost it access to the Aegean Sea. The same strategy was followed in World War II, where the wartime borders show us the Bulgarian wish list, with gains from Serbia, Romania, and Greece (Turkey was not in the War). The post-War settlement erased those gains, except against Romania, which had also been a member of the Axis. Today Macedonia has broken away from Yugoslavia, but to become independent rather than a part of Bulgaria. Note that the numbering of Kings Boris III and Simeon II goes back to the original mediaeval Bulgarian Tsars.

Mediaeval Bulgaria, Qaghans & Tsars
Mediaeval Bulgaria, Asens
Mediaeval Bulgaria, Terters

Trouble over Bosnia began World War I, when a member of a Serbian "Black Hand" assassination squad killed the Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand. Austria ended up declaring war on Serbia, Russia on Austria, and Germany on Russia. The Germans then, of course, invaded France, Russia's ally, and did so through Belgium, violating recognized Belgian neutrality and bringing Britain into the War. Turkey and Bulgaria, the losers of the Balkan Wars, sided with Germany and Austria, while the other Balkan countries went with the Allies (Greece reluctantly -- Queen Sophia was Kaiser Wilhelm's sister). The result was losses for Bulgaria and gains for all the Allies, with Serbia orchestrating the formation of Yugoslavia from Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and other remants of Austria-Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia. România got Transylvania from Hungary and also gains from Russia, which was distracted by the Russian Revolution and Civil War. Bulgaria's loss of its Aegean coast would prove fortunate for the region when it later went communist. However little Greece and Turkey liked each other, it was convenient for them as Western allies to have a land frontier.

6. ALBANIA

Ismail Kemal Bey 1912-1914

Wilhelm of Wied King,
1914,
d.1945

Essad Pasha Toptani 1914-1916

Austrian Occupation, 1916-1918

Turchan Pasha 1919-1920

Regency Council, 1920-1924

Bishop Fan Noli 1924

Ahmet Zogu,
Zog I 1925-1928

King,
1928-1939
d.1961

Italian & German Occupation, 1939-1943
Victor Emanuel (III) King,
1939-1943

German Occupation, 1943-1945

Communist takeover,
Enver Hoxha Dictatorship, 1945-1985

Omer Nishani 1946-1953

Haji Leschi 1953-1982

Ramiz Alia 1982-1992

Sali Berisha 1992-1997

Rexhep Kemal Mejdani 1997-present

Leka Pretender,
1961-present

6. ALBANIA
Ismail Kemal Bey	1912-1914
Wilhelm of Wied	King, 1914, d.1945
Essad Pasha Toptani	1914-1916
Austrian Occupation, 1916-1918
Turchan Pasha	1919-1920
Regency Council, 1920-1924
Bishop Fan Noli	1924
Ahmet Zogu, Zog I	1925-1928
King, 1928-1939 d.1961
Italian & German Occupation, 1939-1943
Victor Emanuel (III)	King, 1939-1943
German Occupation, 1943-1945
Communist takeover, Enver Hoxha Dictatorship, 1945-1985
Omer Nishani	1946-1953
Haji Leschi	1953-1982
Ramiz Alia	1982-1992
Sali Berisha	1992-1997
Rexhep Kemal Mejdani	1997-present
Leka	Pretender, 1961-present

Just about the poorest and least educated people in Europe, the Albanians had unexpected independence thrust upon them after the First Balkan War (1912-1913) and then found themselves locked into paranoid and pauperized isolation by a particularly nasty and megalomaniacal Communist regime after World War II, under longtime Communist Party Chief Enver Hoxha. After the schism between Comminist China and the Soviet Union, for many years Albania was China's only international ally and supporter, regularly submitting the PRC for membership in the United Nations. But eventually, after membership, China began allowing Capitalism, and Albania had to retreat into its own paranoid isolation as the last surviving Stalinist dictatorship. Since Hoxha expected the Capitalists to invade at any time, the Albanian landscape became covered with small bunkers, to defend every inch. The country, which had always been poor anyway, became even poorer in Hoxha's grip, and it is nowhere near even recovering, much less developing to the level of its European neighbors. The Fall of Communism even witnessed large numbers of Albanians attempting to flee to Italy by boat. Among the mysterious, autochthonous peoples of the Balkans, the Albanians were strongly Latinized under Rome, Islamicized under Turkey, coveted by Italy and Serbia, and include substantial communities in Greece (denied by Greece, which officially has no ethnic minorities). Like a number of peoples in the Balkans, they may not know just what to make of themselves in the modern world, much less how their society is supposed to function. Recent conspicuous Americans of Albanian heritage have been the Belushis, John and his brother Jim, and Sandra Bullock (whose mother is German and father, reportedly, of Albanian derivation). One of John Belushi's memorable roles on Saturday Night Live was in the ongoing "Greek Diner" skits. The Belushis, indeed, had run such a diner in Chicago.

As the Ottoman Empire declined in strength, and Christians in the Balkans found European allies who favored their independence, like Britain for Greece and Russia for Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria, the Balkans became the scene of one conflict after another. The Turks were not entirely out of the picture until 1913, and this still left a number of the successor states, especially Bulgaria and Serbia, not entirely happy with their shares. The Serbs also pursued a grievance against Austria-Hungary, which inspired the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand in 1914, precipitating World War I. In the end the Serbs realized their dream of "Yugoslavia," the union of all the "Southern Slavs." The dream of the Serbs, however, was not necessarily the dream of all their fellow Yugoslavs. Macedonians really spoke a dialect of Bulgarian, and would have been part of Bulgaria if the Bulgarians had had their way. Slovenia, which historically had been part of Austria, and Croatia, which historically had been part of Hungary, were divided from the Serbs by religion, Catholicism versus Serbian Orthodoxy, and history, the Latin West versus the Greek, Slavonic, and Turkish East, even though both the Serbs and Croatians really spoke the same language -- Serbo-Croatian. Bosnia-Herzegovina was a messy mixture of Serbs, Croatians, and those from both groups who had converted to Islam during the long Turkish presence (the Bosniacs).

For a long time the jumble of ethnic groups in Yugoslavia didn't seem to make too much difference. A preview of the future, however, was evident when the Germans didn't have much trouble getting Croatians to kill Serbs and others in World War II. The map at left shows the boundaries the way the Germans sorted them out during the War. Hungary, Croatia, România, and Bulgaria were all German allies. Hungary, of course, wanted Transylvania back, but this would have to be at the expense of another German ally, so Hitler compromised by giving Hungary a part (the part with the most Hungarians) of Transylvania, but then compensated România with extra territory in the Ukraine (going off the map). Bulgaria got an expanded Aegean coast and a major goal for some time, Macedonia. While Albania was occupied by Italy, it was nevertheless expanded on what would have been Albanian nationalist principles, with large pieces of Kosovo and Eprius. Banat was a Romanian speaking region of Yugoslavia which, for some reason, was made independent rather than ceded to România. The Ionian Islands were directly annexed to Italy, probably because they had belonged to Venice for some centuries. The principle of Italian irredentism in the Adriatic was that any place that had ever had an Italian name should belong to Italy.

On the post-World War II map, România has lost considerable territory to the Soviet Union, including what Stalin took in 1940 (now Moldova), and the territory that had been gotten from Bulgaria in 1913. Otherwise, pre-War boundaries were restored. Marshall Tito (a Croat), after a successful Communist insurgency against the Germans, got Yugoslavia put back together, broke with Stalin, helped found the "unaligned" movement in the Cold War, and for many years appeared to govern a happy and prosperous compromise between East and West -- a favorite vacation destination for Europeans.

With the Fall of Communism, however, the whole business came unglued. Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and most Bosnians wanted to go their own way. The dream of the Serbs crumbled, but their vision of destiny and grievance did not. First they moved against Croatia, either as a preemptive attack or in retaliation for the actions of the dictatorial Croatian leader, Franjo Tudjman, against resident Serbs. It is now a little hard to determine who started it; but the Serbs, tempted by military superiority, invaded in a way that looked more like conquest than humanitarianism. Later, when the Serbs were tied up in Bosnia and Croatia had built up its forces, Tudjman really did expel and massacre Serbs, but the international community was already prepared to excuse or ignore that as just retaliation. Both Serbia and Croatia, sometimes in cooperation, then turned on Bosnia, which soon became a byword for massacre and atrocities, including mass rapes, such had not been seen in the Balkans since World War II. The Serbs, at the very least, handled their public relations very poorly. Photos of emaciated prisoners in Serbian concentration camps immediately lost them the international propaganda war. Although the Croatians and Bosniacs certainly committed some atrocities themselves, the Serbian massacres seemed larger, more blatant, and more insolent and defiant. While Tudjman might well have been prosecuted as a war criminal (he is now dead), it has mainly been the Serbs, and the former President of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, who have been the targets of war crime prosecutions by the International Tribunal at the Hague. While this has not been entirely fair to the Serbs, it does not excuse them from what was indeed done. By whining about their own centuries of oppression, while slaughtering Moslems, the Serbs managed to become some of the most self-righteous war criminals within memory. Some NATO bombing, peacekeepers on the ground, arrests, and war crimes trials finally put some kind of lid on the conflict in Bosnia. But many guessed what was coming next. Because of the Croatian offensive and version of "ethnic cleansing," some Serbs then fled all the way to....Kosovo.

7. MACEDONIA

Nikola Kljusev 1991-1999

Savo Klimovoski 1999

Boris Trajkovski 1999-present

Claimed by Bulgaria and seized by Serbia in the Balkan Wars, Macedonia was nevertheless allowed to leave Yugoslavia in 1991 with a minimum of hassle. Much more hassle came from Greece, which felt threatened by this tiny state using the name "Macedonia" and, apparently, identifying itself with the Macedonia of Alexander the Great. The new flag featured the "Star of Vergina," from the tomb of Philip II of Macedon. This implied Macedonian designs on northern Greece, also containing part of historic Macedonia; and indeed Macedonians did express some claims there. I even saw stickers on lampposts in New York City proclaiming "Macedonia is Greek!" What this was supposed to mean was not going to be obvious to anyone. It made it sound like Greece itself had designs on the new Republic of Macedonia. Did anyone even in New York City know, or care, what this was all about? Probably not.

7. MACEDONIA
Nikola Kljusev	1991-1999
Savo Klimovoski	1999
Boris Trajkovski	1999-present

As it happened, Greece initially blocked admission of Macedonia to the United Nations. The flag was modified and the country is now usually referred to as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYRM). Bulgaria seems to have given up claims to Macedonia, but I am still not clear whether Macedonian is or is not a dialect of Bulgaria. There are ways to determine this. Otherwise, the region has simply never been anything but "Macedonia."

I have received correspondence from a couple of Greeks disputing this, contending that the territory of the FYRM was never in historic Macedonia. Well, there is going to be considerable uncertainty about all ancient boundaries, and there is no telling how far Philip II's Macedonia extended north. Chances are it was well into FYRM territory (probably the whole valley of the Vardar/Axios River). Nevertheless, for Roman Macedonia the boundaries are better known. The capital of the FYRM, Skopje (Roman Scupi), was definitely in the early Roman province of Moesia Superior (later Dacia Mediterranea). However, the boundary of Moesia was immediately south of Skopje, which itself is quite close to the northern boundary of the FYRM. One map in the Atlas of the Roman World (Tim Cornell & John Matthews, Facts on File Publications, 1982, 1988, p.75) shows the bend of the Axius (Axios/Vardar) River, with Scupi on the north bank, as the actual northern boundary of Macedonia. Other maps (pp.141, 146) show some of the bend itself in Moesia, but this still leaves most of the territory of the FYRM in Roman Macedonia. The Roman cities of Stobi (near modern Stip), Lychnidus (modern Ohrid), and Heraclea Lyncestis (near modern Bitola) were all in Roman Macedonia and in the present FYRM. There is agreement on this in the Atlas of Classical History (Richard J.A. Talbert, Routledge, 1985, 1989, p.143).

For some, Macedonian claims to Greek Macedonia may be based on the territorial integrity of the Macedonia of Philip II and on the presumed ethnic identity of the modern Macedonians with the ancient. This kind of claim cannot now be taken seriously, both because ancient boundaries are going to mean nothing in modern international law and because the modern Macedonians speak a Slavic language which certainly has nothing to do with the (albeit poorly attested) language of the ancient Macedonians. The other basis of Macedonian claims, however, is more serious, and that concerns Macedonians living in Greece. The Greeks deny that there is any such presence; but then Greece officially denies that there are any ethnic minorities in Greece. Linguistic maps of Greece in the 19th century show areas of speakers of Albanian, Vlach, Macedonian, and even Turkish. The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume II (Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, 1978) shows Macedonian speakers extending from south of Skopje (Üsküp in Turkish, in a partially Albanian speaking area, continguous with Kosovo) all the way down to Thessalonica (p.120). If there are no longer Macedonian speakers in the modern Greek part of this area (only acquired in 1913), then there is some explaining to do. If Greece expelled the Macedonians, suppressed their language, or got them to leave through harassment or oppressive policies, none of these are going to be admissions to the credit of Greece, or admissions likely to be made, for just such a reason. At the very least, the FYRM can reasonably ask for an accounting on this issue.

I am informed that Greeks would be happy with the FYRM simply being called "Northern Macedonia." This is a little silly and is not going to make any difference in any Macedonian claims or possible threat against Greece. A parallel situation in Europe is actually the relationship of Luxembourg to Belgium. When Belgium became independent of the Netherlands in 1830, it took with it a very large part of Luxembourg. This area of Belgium is still called "Luxembourg." I have never heard that Luxembourg, which itself became independent of the Netherlands in 1890, today makes any claims against Belgium. But even if it did, tiny Luxembourg, although with the highest per capita income in the world, would not constitute any kind of real threat. Poor and tiny Macedonia is not going to constitute any more of a threat to Greece. If Macedonian guerrillas were crossing over into Greece, this would be a matter of real concern and complaint, but I do not understand that anything of the sort has happened; and even if it did, Greece would have no difficulty knowing where to direct counter-action.

As it has happened, the problem of guerrillas has troubled the FYRM itself. Albanian refugees inundated northern Macedonia in 1999, where there was already, as noted, an Albanian community. With them came armed Albanians who, having lost in battle with the Serbs, were interested in "liberating" northern Macedonia. They succeeded no better there, but for a while there was considerable danger of a wider conflict. Meanwhile, Macedonia is the poorest of the former Yugoslav Republics, with a lower per capita income even than Albania. This puts it perilously close to being the poorest country in Europe -- though it is probably safe from that, since Moldova has a per capita income of not much over $300, while Macedonia's is more than $1500. "Room for improvement" hardly begins to tell the tale. The dispute over Macedonia's name and claims doesn't even begin to address the real problem economic development in the FYRM and elsewhere in the Balkans.

A major part of Serbia itself since 1913, the province of Kosovo was only 10% Serb in population. Most of the rest were Albanian Moslems, who had been deprived of the autonomy they had under the old Yugoslavia and were now beginning to fight for independence through the radical Islamic "Kosova Liberation Army" (KLA). What many observers expected, then, was that the Serbs would turn the "ethnic cleansing" campaign made famous in Bosnia to the problem of too many Albanians, especially rebellious Albanians, in Kosovo. With the UN and the NATO allies already energized about Bosnia, simple defiance was not going to work for the Serbs the way it might have if action had been taken against Kosovo before all the events in Bosnia. But defiance was the approach that the Serbs took, over a land to which they emotionally claimed "historic rights," but which had mostly been occupied by others since the 17th century and had been in Serbian hands only since 1913. Although many Serbs now cite atrocities during World War II or say there was even "ethnic cleansing" against them under Tito, their claim to Kosovo is mainly as part of "historic" (i.e. 14th century) Serbia.

Unfortunately, in modern Europe several wars have been fought between France and Germany, Italy and Austria, Germany and Poland, etc., over many such "historic" claims. Such things made a poor rationale for dictatorial and terrorist measures, especially by an undemocratic country. When NATO decided to move against Serbian measures in Kosovo in March 1999, we ended up with the next round of the ongoing Balkans War. This time, however, the naked preference of the Russians for the Orthodox Serbs over the Moslem Albanians, and similar sentiments evidently shared by Greeks and others, left the Albanians with no local friends at all. Albania itself has been a basket case of anarchy and corruption almost the whole time since the end of Communism there. But the outcome of such a conflict was very problematic when the NATO countries would rather fight a quick, high tech war on the cheap, before body bags and anti-war sentiment upsets things at home, while the Serbs, who learned their ruthlessness from Marshal Tito, wanted nothing better than to appear as martyrs of America, even while burning villages and driving people out of Kosovo. A century of war thus ended more or less as it began, with Serbian grievance dragging others into a war, while NATO, unable to commit on the ground, ended up bombing civilian infrastructure in Serbia, contrary to international law, in a rapidly growing "total war."

In June 1999, the Serbs finally gave in, after heavy bombing of Serbia itself, and the Kosovars, driving out the remaining Serbs of Kosovo and attempting to provoke an Albanian rising in Macedonia, have behaved more or less the way the Serbs did. But Kosovo now seems headed for long term autonomy or even independence.

Ottoman Sult.âns