The Balkans: A Captivating Guide to the History of the Balkan Peninsula, Starting from Classical Antiquity through the Middle Ages to the Modern Period

by Captivating History

Did you know that the Balkans is home to some of the oldest cities in the world?

Many have heard the term “Balkans” tossed about but likely don’t know a whole lot about the region. The saga of the Balkans is profound yet incredibly complicated. Bordered by both the Balkan Mountains of southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean Sea, this region holds a strong place in the history of Western civilization and is also a major crossroads of Eastern civilization as well.

The Balkans have been the stomping grounds of both Byzantine emperors and Ottoman sultans. And both Christianity and Islam call this place home. Sadly, it was this clash of culture and religion that would lead to much of the struggles in the history of the Balkans.

Similar fault lines of conflict occurred in more recent years, especially when the Balkans erupted in bloodshed in the 1990s. The Balkans had just thrown off the fetters of decades of communism to embrace an uncertain future, only to be haunted by terrible demons from its past.

This book takes a look at both the ancient past of this important part of the world, as well as more recent events.

In this book, you will learn people who first called the Balkans home;The role and impact Alexander the Great had on the region;What life was like for the people of the Balkans during the Roman and Byzantine Empires;What changes did the Ottoman administration bring to the Balkans;The interesting roles the Balkans played during the two world wars;How communism penetrated into the Balkans and its influence today;What the Balkan states have been up to in more recent years;And much more!
Scroll up and click the “add to cart” button to learn more about the Balkans!

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Audiobook

102 pages, Kindle Edition

Published April 18, 2022

Reviews

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the biggest challenge I have faced on Goodreads; not reading this, but writing a review. "Don't write a review," I say to myself, "Just give it four stars and sneak off."

"Nah," can't can I? What would my mentors say?

Within that landmass we now call the Balkans, the earliest evidence of human occupation, nomadic (seasonal) migrations is from roughly 50,000 years ago. Time moves on and for about 40,000 years, apart from the odd rattling of wooden clubs and sharpened pikes after a dispute between settlements, and the occasional band of rowdy interlopers, archaeological evidence suggests that it was a kind-of peaceful place in the most part. There was, they believe, a bit of a hiccup around 4,000BCE, (they've no real idea of what caused it) but things after a few centuries got back on track. Around 330BCE Alexander the Great came along and banged a few heads together, but he did that in almost all the places he visited. So, still, on the whole, a peaceful existence was had. Then late on in that same century, of course, ... (page 14)

... along came the Romans with their idea of how all should behave. And, you know, a few were not too happy with their lot: they became rebellious! How dare they?

On page 76, we are told that in 1922 the BALKAN WARS erupted. Hang on, from page 15 to page 76 we've had nothing but one war after another: the place has been at war for close on 2,000 years. There are many reasons why, I'm quite aware of that, but ... the BALKAN WARS did not start in 1922. I'm sorry - I know, I know nothing - but come on!

The Balkans always has been a crossroads where those from Northern, Eastern and Western Europe swapped goods, stories, ideas, politics, and RELIGIOUS BELIEFS with those from Southern Europe, Asia Minor, Arabia, Persia, North Africa and beyond. And, eventually the mixing pot of religions, cultures and ethnicities grew bigger and bigger and bigger.

Having finished this, and I did find it a jolly enjoyable read, I reckon that the Romans coming along when they did, unwittingly, lit the blue touch-paper: and we all know what happens when someone does that.

It does explain, in a way that I can understand, how and why, in 1054, the Christian belief became fractured and from the Roman Catholic Church the division that was suffered allowed the formation of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I hadn't up until reading this put those pieces together (the picture is not complete by any means but I am a lot further along than I was).

A good history book, one-hundred pages and NOT boring (I've just joined the, 'History is Not Boring' group). So, if you are thinking about dipping your toe in the history puddle, these books: 'Hourly History of ...' and 'Captivating History of ...' might just be the thing. They don't try to baffle you with competing theories of why, when and how. This is the nuts and bolts of it, and just what I need; the rest of it will come along when it does.

I'm about to start a book called, 'THE BALKAN WARS'; I'll have something to say about it starting in 1922, I can tell you.

[Mustakim · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75/5

[Dr.J.G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

While the book is informative on history of the region as far as past goes, one's uncertain of how reliable the slant or stance here is regarding, for example, break-up of Yugoslavia in recent decades.

West has a view that, for example, is quite standard; however, documentaries on RT tell quite a different story.
................................................................................................


"“I am the leader of one country which has two alphabets, three languages, four religions, five nationalities, six republics, surrounded by seven neighbors, a country in which live eight ethnic minorities.”

"-Josip Broz Tito"

Sounds comparable to first circle of our clan, that's to say, families of grandparents of each - our aunts and uncles, cousins, and their spouses and descendants.
................................................................................................


"Not everyone was happy with Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Greece, for one, still does not recognize Kosovo’s NATO-given status. Romania and Bulgaria actually joined NATO in 2003. They then followed up this feat by gaining entrance into the European Union in 2007. Slovenia had already earned this privilege in 2004."

"Earned"?????

"Becoming members of both of these international organizations is appealing to many Balkan states, but doing so or even suggesting a desire to do so could bring forth many unforeseen consequences.

"Ukraine is generally not considered a part of the Balkans, with the possible exception of Crimea. But nevertheless, this nation serves as a great example of the Pandora’s box that can be opened in light of the Ukraine/Russia tensions, which erupted into full-blown war in 2022. Ever since the end of the Cold War, many parts of the Balkans have faced the same kinds of pressures of feeling inevitably torn between the East and the West."

For one, Russia was denied entrance to NATO. For another, if states that have nothing to do with Atlantic are members, and Russia is refused entry, it becomes clear its about ganging up against one nation. For yet another, Ukraine in 2022 isn't that different from Cuba during missile crisis.

But most of all, one notices that it's Bulgaria, Slovenia and Ukraine who are welcomed into NATO.

What's common?

They were, two out of three, stridently pro-nazi during heyday of nazi occupation of Europe. If not as state, as in case of Ukraine, then as ethnics thereof, as attested by memoirs of holocaust survivors who mention them, if at all, in that light.
................................................................................................


"Vladislav II attempted to flee, but he was intercepted and killed. There was now no question who would lead Wallachia, and Vlad III, the Son of the Dragon himself, was placed onto the Wallachian throne. Vlad Dracula was suddenly on the front lines of the Balkan conflict between the Christian powers and the Ottoman Turks. He would somehow have to thread the needle between the two.

"On some occasions, Dracula seems to appease the sultan, but on others, he openly defied him. One of the most audacious incidents involving Vlad Dracula occurred in 1461 when he took a small contingent with him to a nearby Turkish base in Giurgiu and tricked them into allowing him access. It has been said that Vlad, who was fluent in Turkish since he was partially raised by the Turks, simply commanded the guards in their native tongues to let him in. The Turks were surprised to hear Turkish commands and obeyed without much question.

"But once Vlad Dracula and his band of warriors were allowed in their midst, they turned on their hosts and decimated them. Dracula then fortified this former Turkish citadel and turned it into his own base of operations to launch raids against the Ottomans. Through his own ruthless ingenuity, Dracula would absolutely terrorize the Ottomans. He was rather fond of impaling Turkish soldiers on stakes, which led to the development of another nickname—Vlad the Impaler.

"It is said that at one point, in 1462 when Sultan Mehmed II himself led an army to take on Vlad III, he was horrified to find tens of thousands of his own troops impaled on stakes in a gruesome display that spanned several miles along the path to Dracula’s domain in Wallachia. As horrendous as some of Vlad Dracula’s actions were, there can be no doubt that his ruthless tactics slowed the Ottoman advance down long enough to allow the rest of the Balkans to continue to keep up their resistance to the Ottoman aggression. It is for this reason that many in the Balkans uphold Vlad III as a freedom fighter and folk hero rather than the blood-sucking vampire that Hollywood later made Dracula out to be."

To be fair, it was an author, and an English one, Bram Stoker, whose excellent - probably a first, a beginner of a genre - novel was turned into a cinematic experience by Hollywood, and at that, not quite nearly as good as the original book.

The book doesn't claim to be based on the historical person, however, any more than the film foes, and even though he and his legend was the inspiration, the two - historical facts versus art - must be treated as separate.

A similar example would be, say, grandmother of Margaret Mitchell, on whom was based a character inher work, Gone With The Wind. People claim it was the heroine, but far more likely it was her - Scarlett's - grandmother, Mrs Robillard, who's modelled on her, because anyone who managed to not only survive Yankees onslaught but ran a successful lumber mill or two- and that, in the deeply conservative South - would be a legend in fact, known in her own right. Not someone guessed about due to a book by her granddaughter.

An original of Mrs Robillard, on the other hand, is another matter. Sensational for times, but nothing much for another generation to talk about, unless they are close relatives.
................................................................................................


"The local citizens of the Balkans were not the only ones who rebelled during this period. The sultan’s elite force, the Janissaries, also began to frequently cause the sultan trouble closer to home. The Janissaries were mostly made up of young men who had been taken from Christian families in the Balkans through the devshirme, which really was nothing more than a child tax."

Dev is God in Sanskrit; what language is shirme?

"It is absolutely abhorrent to consider it today, but a major part of the Ottoman war machine was the requirement that had been placed upon subject people to sacrifice one of their own children to the Ottoman state. Snatched from their families, these little boys were indoctrinated and trained as elite soldiers for the Ottoman Empire. It was the peculiar nature of how the Janissaries were brought up that made them such a ruthless and effective fighting force."

No such practices ever existed in India of antiquity, but invading hordes brought in slavery and jizya, which had not existed in India until then. At that, Hindus never accepted delivery in the sense of buying any, but Hindus were forced by some invaders capturing and taking them as slaves to march across mountains, and died in the process by thousands.

"Essentially raised by the Ottoman state, they were brainwashed with Ottoman propaganda from their youth. Most were taken before they could form lasting memories with their family, so they knew nothing but the cult-like atmosphere that they were brought up in. With no family or any other ties to hold them down, they would develop a fanatical loyalty to the sultan and the Ottoman Empire."

To some extent its been done in the terrorist factory that parades as a nation but hasn't been much more than a heavily paid military base used by West in the Great game against Russia. Sons of poor families are often forced to be sent to the jihadist training schools by whatever name, forced by their poverty and the fact that family planning is as abhorred by state religion as any life other than that of sexusl and household slavery gor females, who are as per the state religion aren't supposed to have souls.

"However, after repeated military failures, these kidnapped men of the Balkans began to rise up and rebel against their Ottoman masters. In fact, the situation became so bad that the Ottoman administration ended up putting more weight behind local militias in the Balkans rather than putting all of their faith in the Janissary corps. These local militias were called martolos, and they were tasked with protecting the Balkan frontier."

Is Janissary related to Jaanisaar of urdu? In which case it amounts to those having been troops meant for sacrificing their own lives!
................................................................................................


Ottoman policy that required the sultan’s prospective heirs to be essentially isolated from the world. Known as the “cage policy,” this was developed in order to prevent infighting and a crisis of succession upon the death of a sultan. The sultan’s sons were largely confined to the palace, and their only real interactions were with their parents, tutors, and women from the harem. This isolation prevented the sons of the sultan from developing powerful factions with which they could wage war against each other upon their father’s death."

Seeing how sons of Shahjahan were all murdered by the most ruthless one for sake of the throne, apart from imprisoning his father and taking over, perhaps this caution was necessary part of that culture!

"But while it was successful in preventing infighting among the sultan’s sons during the transition of power, it also had the effect of making the new sultan incredibly inept when it came to governing. One can only imagine what it must have been like to have a person completely isolated from the world suddenly thrust upon the throne of one of the world’s largest empires. In reality, the cage policy essentially ensured that the sultan would be largely a pawn of his administrators, who would be the real power behind the throne."

Not very different from UK or US where the next in waiting has no real legal role, until perhaps the current vice president of US.

Notably, heir of Queen Victoria chaffed about it, and quite without use.
................................................................................................


"After the Serbs were defeated, the Ottoman commander, Hurshid Pasha, actually had a large stone tower constructed in which Serbian skulls were inserted into the masonry. Known as “Skull Tower,” the structure still stands today, with hundreds of Serbian skulls staring out from each side; there are fourteen rows of skulls from top to bottom. This dreadful tower was erected to frighten the rest of the Serbs into submission, but modern-day Serbs have upheld the grisly site not as a place of foreboding but as a national symbol of resistance to the Ottoman oppressors."

And its falsely advertised as religion of peace!
................................................................................................


"Indeed, in 1833, a visiting writer from France, Alphonse de Lamartine, shared that very sentiment. And he perhaps described it best when, upon encountering Skull Tower, he declared, “My eyes and my heart greeted the remains of those brave men whose cut-off heads made the cornerstone of the independence of their homeland. May the Serbs keep this monument! It will always teach their children the value of the independence of a people, showing them the real price their fathers had to pay for it.” The site has since been opened up to the public, and it is now even considered something of a tourist attraction, despite its grisly past.

"Sadly enough, however, the situation for the Serbs at the time of the uprising would only go from bad to worse. Russia faced a renewed threat from France, so it abandoned the Serbs when they needed its forces and aid the most. By 1813, the Ottomans had ended up seizing most of what the rebels had gained.

"After the uprising was put down, vengeful massacres ensued, and a flood of refugees left their homeland, primarily for Austrian- or Russian-controlled territory. But no matter how much terror the Ottomans inflicted, they could not keep down the Serbian populace for good. In 1815, yet another popular uprising took place. This time around, the Serbs were able to shake off the Ottomans for good, and their independence as a sovereign nation was finally recognized in 1830."

This spirit of headlong charging into enemy ranks is funnily enough, immortalised by George Bernard Shaw in his play. That he praised the Swiss mercenary who thinks, instead, is quite another story. But one recognizes the Serb as the gallant one can only pay homage to, despite no such indication by Shaw.
................................................................................................


"“My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go.”

"-Mustafa Kemal Ataturk"

He'd banned burqa too. Now, they've brought it back.
................................................................................................


"The Great Depression, which occurred in the 1930s, had made the Balkans and the world even more unstable, and the Balkan nations began looking for trade partners. Many of these Balkan states would look to the Axis for aid. For example, Italy dominated Albanian trade, and Germany would come to dominate much of the rest.

"World War Two began in Europe when Germany invaded Poland in the fall of 1939, but it can be said to have begun in the Balkans when Italy occupied Albania in April 1939. From Albania, the Italians would launch an offensive into Greece on October 28th, 1940. However, this push into Greece was met with considerable resistance, and the Italians were repulsed. The Italians tried again in the spring of 1941, but they were beaten back a second time.

"Germany, which was aided by Bulgaria, had rolled into Yugoslavia, successfully seizing the territory in April of 1941. The Germans then invaded Greece from both the north and the south, dealing it a decisive defeat. With Greece under Axis control, Yugoslavia was dissolved. Chunks of Yugoslavia were divvied up between Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria. The rest was fashioned into the Independent State of Croatia. It was really independent in name only since, from the very beginning, it was nothing more than a Nazi vassal state with a handpicked dictator—Ante Pavelic—at the helm.

"At any rate, from this point forward, the Axis nations found themselves in control of the entire Balkan Peninsula. Needless to say, life under the fascists was terrible. It has been said that in the Yugoslavian region alone, about a million people were killed. Due to Adolf Hitler’s determination to commit genocide against the Jewish people, a large majority of these deaths were Jews. Tragically enough, it is said that as much as 80 percent of the Jewish population of the Balkans was wiped out.
................................................................................................


"This was abundantly clear, for example, in Romania, where communism—especially Soviet-style communism—was not popular at the time. Unlike other Balkan nations, Romania, for the most part, did not have a very favorable view of the Russians. The Romanians had a Catholic background, so they were traditionally closer to the west than the Russian east, and needless to say, the outbreak of recent hostilities between the two certainly did not help matters.

"Due to this natural disenchantment with Soviet influence, turning Romania into a communist nation took considerably more work on the part of the Soviets. The Soviets backed a sham election in 1946, in which the communists somehow magically received two-thirds of the total vote. This was quite a feat since most of the country was against communism.

"Most Romanians probably did not like the idea of handing over the regions of Bukovina and Bessarabia to the Soviets either. However, their government was made to sign the Paris Treaty, which dealt out reparations and other concessions from World War II, on February 10th, 1947, and these territories suddenly belonged to the Soviet Union. If it were any consolation, the Romanians were at least handed back Transylvania, which they had lost during the war. The Romanian king stepped down that very year and exiled himself to Switzerland. Shortly thereafter, the Romanian People’s Republic was declared."

Wasn't this king a descendant, a great-grandson of Queen Victoria, and a grand nephew of the late Tsar Nicholas II?

From Wikipedia:-

" ... In November 1947, Michael attended the wedding of his cousins, the future Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark in London. Shortly thereafter, on the morning of 30 December 1947, Groza met with Michael and compelled him to abdicate. Michael was forced into exile, his properties confiscated, and his citizenship stripped. In 1948, he married Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma (thenceforth known as Queen Anne of Romania), with whom he had five daughters, and the couple eventually settled in Switzerland."

"As a great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria, through both of his parents, Michael was a third cousin of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, King Harald V of Norway, King Juan Carlos I of Spain, King Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Through his maternal grandfather, King Constantine I of Greece, Michael was a first cousin of King Constantine II of Greece and Queen Sophia of Spain, consort of Juan Carlos I of Spain."

What they don't mention is that he's related to - or rather, descended from - Queen Victoria via her second son who was married to the daughter of Tsar Alexander, and thus a close relative of Tsar Nicholas, as well as of his wife Alexandra who was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................

[Jerry Jares · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author of this book has an engaging writing style that propels the story along at a fast clip. Having read several tomes on the Crusades, it was interesting to read about these battles from the Balkan/Ottoman side (what was going on in the Balkans that alarmed people enough to call for help from the Western Christians).

After the Crusades, the Ottoman Empire eyed Constantinople. Finally, in 1453, the Ottomans seized Constantinople and toppled the Byzantine Empire. At that point, the Balkans were ripe for the plucking. There is an interesting description of the Janissaries, the elite fighting force of the Turks. They were the children of subjected people trained as fierce Turkish warriors.

Religion was complex in the Balkans. For example, one of the local traditions of Hungary was the belief in vampires. The author cleverly weaves the story of Vlad II and Vlad III Dracula (Vlad the Impaler) into this story of the Balkans. It certainly keeps the discussion lively. The Blood Countess, Elizabeth Bathory, is also mentioned. Gruesome events happen when folks don't have television; they think of brutal ways to kill their enemies. Not to be outdone, the Ottoman leader, Hurshid Pasha, had a stone tower erected with fourteen rows of defeated Serbian skulls. He intended to scare the Serbs - but it didn't work.

The Ottoman's attempts to take Vienna are interesting because the reader sees it from the Ottoman perspective (instead of the usual Western Europe viewpoint). That is why I found this book to be so interesting. The stories come through from the opposite angle. Essentially, this book shows the power and gradual decline of the Ottoman Empire. The 'cage policy' of the Turkish leaders certainly explains the weakening of their leaders (Potential leaders hid away from the world; their first activities were as the leader of the country. They had little comprehension of how to rule).

My favorite quote in this book was by Tito (ruler of Yougoslavia): "I am the leader of one country which has two alphabets, three languages, four religions, five nationalities, six republics, surrounded by seven neighbors, a country in which live eight ethnic minorities." This quote encompasses the challenges the Balkan states grappled with since ancient times.

[Shayna · Rating 5 out of 5]

love this series

I have a strong prejudice against history books: boring, repetitive and heavy reading. But this series has been awesome.

This is the 2nd book I’ve read from Captivating History, and so far have not been disappointed. It’s short (less than 100 pages) but informative and clearly written enough to make things understandable and in a way that’s engaging instead of overwhelming.

It does overlap a (very small) bit with the first I read (Romania/Vlad the Impaler), but that’s to be expected given the geographical proximity, but it didn’t feel like reading the same book twice.

ETA - prejudice against history TEXT books, or history books that read like text books. Because my bestie is sounding like she’s gonna disown me for this one. 🤣

[Mihai Pop · Rating 2 out of 5]

Leaving aside the wrong facts, one that comes to mind now is that Romania is somehow Catholic inclined, the lack of depth is again good only as an opening chapter into a library to learn more, a lot more. Also - Greece is in the Balkans, geographically, culturally, politically and historically, so not sure why one would want to set it aside.

[James M. Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

another great concise read

A great concise history on a region most people can’t locate on a map or even give a recent history of. Great inclusion of current events related to Russia & Ukraine

[x x x · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nice prose

Complex is too simple a term in the History of the Balkans. Tribal, social, mythos, religious, empires, and neighbors coalesce to make a mighty, often violent brew for folks.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

This synopsis is similar to a Cliff-Notes version of novels...very much abridged and not much on cultural history. Just the facts, ma'am!
Still a well-written introduction to an area that I will soon be visiting.
Recommended within limits.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well researched, written very well, and though some spots were a touch boring the majority of the book moved right along and I learned more than I thought about the country, it’s history and it’s location being ideal. Overall, well worth the time & effort.

[Leonard Ramos · Rating 5 out of 5]

the Balkan Quagmire.

Very enlightening historical review of this complex region. For the first time I was made aware of the compellingly motives of the various competing groups of people that included religion, imperialism, greed, power, and ethnic clensing.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quick Highlights of the Balkans

A nice quick read of the history of the Balkans countries - very helpful and informative. I enjoyed reading while traveling in this area of the world.

[Joseph Warner · Rating 3 out of 5]

the Balkans

A good start to a study of this area. Not for the dedicated student but quite serviceable for the general public easy to read and follows.

[Beth A. Hutton · Rating 5 out of 5]

My Adriatic thoughts

I liked the chronological nature of the book. Having just recently visited four of the countries, the summary of their past helped me understand their present.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of good content but with a very weird sense of how much time to spend discussing various eras/empires/events and across present-day countries

[Rishi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very very concise history which serves as a primer to more reading on the topic. Finished in a day and got a high level picture of balkan history.

[Jenna Lenhardt · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great place.to start learning about the complex history of the Balkans

[Sage · Rating 3 out of 5]

Veeeery general introductory history of the region but ig what did i expect from a book under 200pgs lol

[Marti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful in understanding the history of my ethnicity.

[George Borchert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good brief review of Balkan history

[Ian Hammond · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting and readable overview of Balkan history

Good quick read with major events highlighted. Would have liked more in the recent post WW1 history but as an overview it gives perspective on historical complex events in an easily digestible fashion. I think one or two maps to define the countries under discussion would have been helpful. Well done.

[Perry May · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5 - Wow, complex...