“Good” Turks and “Evil” Ones: Multiple Perspectives on the Turkish Community Reflected in Serbian Sources of the Early Nineteenth Century

Vladimir Jovanovic
The Institute of History, Belgrade

A colorful portrayal of the Turkish Empire at its peak, as seen by the Evli Chelebi in the second half of seventeenth century, represented the golden age of Ottoman splendor in the Balkans. A romanticized and rather simplified vision of Turkish rule as a time of general prosperity and peaceful coexistence still remains a highly popular discourse today. Nevertheless, local narrative sources often prove it not to be completely accurate, offering a different kind of reality. Negation of the mainstream discourse is verified by a plethora of testimonies, at least in case of nineteenth century Serbia. Those authentications simply confirm that just as it started with raids and plunder, Turkish rule in Serbia ended in fires of war and blood. Such an obvious contradiction may be clarified only by a further and more detailed look at local Serbian sources. In a larger context they could prove to be a useful contribution, if taken as a tool to understand hidden causes of decay of the Ottoman power in the Balkans.

But before we examine early nineteenth century sources closely, it would be helpful to offer a short survey of the earliest Serbian accounts concerned with Ottoman Turks as such. Being one of the most important political events in the Balkans in the second half of the fourteenth century, the emergence of the Turks attracted unseen attention by the learned man prepared to note and to memorize. Some even saw a second sign of God’s wrath in that happening, for Turks came to the Balkans almost immediately after the Black Death had stricken this region of Europe. Creating panic and terror, the Turkish invasion soon enough became an element of a greater psychological structure, a local variety of something that historian Jean Delumeau has defined with the term “the Great fear”.¹ It was a collective phenomenon of anxiety that gradually created a notion of helplessness and desperation throughout peoples of the Balkans.²

Changing the fortune of all the Balkan Christians, the Turkish conquest made the deepest impression and was well remembered in Serbian lands.³ Two of the most interesting narratives, which also marked the early beginnings of modern Serbian historiography, were intensely connected with Turks. First was the Biography of Serbian Despot Stefan Lazarevich, written in the early fifteenth century by Konstantin the Philosopher.⁴ It was followed by an autobiographical work of Konstantin Mihailovich from Ostrovo, known as the Janissary memoirs. While the first book depicted the devastation of Serbia on a larger political and chronological scale, the latter was a unique work by an insider.⁵ Composed separately, both these manuscripts described Turks as dangerous invaders and underhanded diplomats, prepared for any trickery, wild and wicked in their war campaigns. They were also seen as cruel enslavers, cherishing neither life nor dignity of Christians. In a word, the depiction was of a mighty, dreadful enemy, not an imagined but a real one.

The identical point of view was repeated and corroborated by many other completely independent sources, written in the first half of the sixteen century. One of those was a chronicle, written by a Hungarian priest, Georg Sremac, who served in the administration of the Belgrade fortress in the times of the final Turkish invasion. The author provided a detailed account of ruthless Turkish war tactics and also revealed some interesting facts about early sixteenth century Serbs. He stressed that the Serbs soon become even worse than the Turks, choosing not to be a flock of lambs but a pack of wolves. As a people without a homeland, thousands of them migrated into Hungarian territory, transformed into mighty warriors without a permanent leader or any moral scruples.⁶

In the sixteenth century, after the establishment of the Ottoman state system in Serbia and Pannonia on a full scale, negatively oriented local narratives about Turks abruptly disappeared.⁷ As a result of the pacification, the Church hierarchy and clergy, the only educated and organized elite of the Serbian people, learned to live in loyal coexistence with Turkish authorities or in isolation in wealthy monasteries. Conversely, the local spirit of insurrection and hidden resistance was expressed through oral epic poetry, enormously popular in the ranks of illiterate. From the late sixteenth century on, legendary King Marko of the epic song cycles became a fictional hero admired by all Balkan Christians, for annihilating Turks in various situations. Other more realistic historical characters, those who had openly and successfully resisted the Ottoman regime, were also remembered and praised trough poems.⁸

Accompanied by the monotonous sound of a string instrument called gusle, epic songs were performed at local Christian meetings and festivities, usually by blind, experienced poets.⁹ The traditional standpoint given through epic poetry crossed paths with the beginnings of modern Serbian historiography in the early nineteenth century. The cycle of epic songs dedicated to the Serbian uprising was the final chapter of a once very popular type of cultural media. Cherishing both the poetic and the historical approach, some Serbian writers deliberately used both written epic songs and prose texts to remember the past.¹⁰ A discourse of revenge for centuries of oppression was similar in both these forms of remembrances alike, oral and written.

Those two main groups of sources, however, were not connected just ideologically, but also on a more concrete, technical level. At the base of both those narratives was information, passed on continuously by the power of the living word. Its unbroken repetition and interpretation produced an organized and logical chain of causes and events, given in chronological order. Owing to the general illiteracy and technical backwardness of the time, the odd and archaic model of oral historical techniques had its own advantages. Beside other difficulties, Serbian authors of the early nineteenth century were lacking a proper media to deliver their massage. Though very common in Europe, the printing press was not imported into Serbia until the third decade of the nineteenth century. If anyone wanted to use machinery and technology for massive book production, he had to go to Vienna or to Venice and to finance his own project privately.¹¹

Nevertheless, initial interest in collecting facts for further historical research was not the result of official state policy, but came as an individual effort of several enthusiasts. The father of Serbian historiography, Vuk Karadzich, took the first successful steps, depicting violent events of the early nineteenth century Serbia.¹² His historical works comprise several different narratives, a few of which were monographic while most of them were short biographies and sketches, published in different periodicals.¹³ A gifted narrator, he also established an original method of exploration, stating that information’s for his works was gathered mostly through interviews and statements supplied by protagonists themselves. Those were first class testimonies taken in a simple form of report, and written down by the author.¹⁴

Karadzich was also a passionate collector of traditional forms of cultural heritage, such was poetry. He wrote down and systemized the oral poetry of the Serbian people, epic, lyric and even erotic folk songs, still very popular in the early nineteenth century. It was a massive work that he accomplished by interviewing the main poets of his time, combining material in thematic cycles and publishing some of it in volumes of books. Through his numerous projects, Karadzich wanted to present Serbian culture not only to a few thousand learned Serbs in Austria but also to European scientific circles.¹⁵

As a consequence of Karadzich’s continuous efforts, the first coherent history of the Serbian uprising was produced by a prominent European author. A professional historian, Leopold von Ranke, wrote The History of Servia and the Servian Revolution, following many sources that Vuk Karadzich kindly presented to him. Ranke’s work was printed in Berlin in 1828.¹⁶ Besides Ranke, there were several other Europeans who took a serious interest in Serbian uprising.¹⁷ A memoirist who gave just a superficial glance at Serbian affairs but meticulously reviled Turks from Bosnia in the early nineteenth century was the governor of the Ilyric provinces of the French empire, Marshal Marmont.¹⁸

Finally, there are two most intriguing sources regarding the events in Serbia in first half of nineteenth century strictly from Turkish point of view. One is the short but vivid passage from the Memoirs of the French convert to Islam, Mansur Ibrahim, from 1813.¹⁹ Another was a more thorough work by the indigent Belgrade Turk, Rashid Bey. Written in the form of a chronicle, it assembled many recollections and oral traditions of the old Belgrade Turks. In such a manner, it produced an interesting and totally opposite picture of events in Serbia in the time of the Uprising. Even the title of text was ironically termed (in translation)—History of Strange Events, depicting the fall of a Turkish might in Serbia and Belgrade, from the local perspective.²⁰

Several decades after the first works by Karadzic’s foreign contemporaries were printed, there were similar attempts to recollect recent events in the Principality of Serbia. Lazar Arsenijevich was one of the first Serbian historians. History of the First Uprising and Biography of Vozd Karadjordje were the two main historical monographs of that author.²¹ Generally speaking, four main types of narrative sources appeared in the mid nineteenth century—histories, memoirs, biographies, and written oral histories.²² The only exception from the literary forms noted was a diary by Jeremija Gagic, a Serbian diplomat and envoy in Russian headquarters.²³ A serious surge in the publication different historical material in Serbia was connected with the celebration of fiftieth anniversary of the First Serbian Uprising, in 1854.²⁴

In the field of autobiographical material there were several interesting projects, some of which are almost unknown even today. Such were memoirs of Maksim Evgenovich, a simple lad who had escaped from the war-stricken town of Uzice at the start of the Serbian uprising, only to find himself on the streets of Belgrade in the midst of the Serbian defeat in 1813.²⁵ Memories of Milovan Vidakovich, short but expressive, depicted the uncertain times in the vicinity of Belgrade in late eighteenth century.²⁶ Memoirs of Mateja Nenadovich, in contrast, were a most elaborate and detailed narrative of the times of Uprising.²⁷ Chronologically, nearly all of those sources were started in the last decade of the eighteenth century, with the interaction between Serbs and Turks was at the core of their interest.

Being an age of war and great uncertainty, the end of the eighteenth century led Turks and Serbs into some very confusing relations, resulting with mixed emotions on both sides. As sources unanimously confirm, the future leader of the Serbs, Black George or Karadjordje as Turks nicknamed him, was in his youth a servant of several Turkish masters.²⁸ His personal relations with influential local Turks also saved his life on numerous occasions.²⁹ Following those well-known facts Serbian sources gladly admitted that there were many Turks who were true, noble, and merciful gentlemen.³⁰

But aside from these obvious examples of mutual coexistence, the situation in the Pashaluk of Belgrade at the end of the eighteenth century was anything but normal. The last war of the Ottoman Empire with Austria was a starting point that changed the geopolitical future of the Northern Balkan Peninsula. The process which involved the consequent liberation of Serbia from Turkish dominance in many ways began as a complicated internal dispute between ruling parties of Turks themselves. In a nutshell, landlords and the domestic Turkish elite as well as the representatives of the sultan’s administration were endangered by massive presence of a janissary element in Serbia. As the main effective part of the sultan’s armies in time of war, those people also were a serious factor of internal instability.

Known mainly for their brutal temperament, many of those Turks were remembered by local sources as completely evil individuals. Another euphemism for evil Turk or janissary was simply the murder, a person who is not afraid to cut off someone’s head if necessary. One source stated that those people were mostly strangers, poor Bosnians and Albanians who did not want to toil themselves, but forced Christian peasants to do so instead.³¹ As one of the noble Turks from Belgrade stated, at the end of eighteenth century the janissary were strangers and troublemakers, restless people of unclear origin.³² For reasons of general peace and stability in the north of the Empire, Sultan Selim III had ordered that disobedient military elements such as the janissaries should be expelled from Serbia, by brute force if necessary. Most of the janissaries left Serbia in 1792, but with vengeance in their mind and planning to return as soon as possible.³³ After ten years of attempts, the janissaries finally took political power in Serbia by force in the summer of 1801.

Violent and shameful, the short period of janissary tyranny from 1801 to 1803 became the focal point of the first modern Serbian histories. The few years of their oppressive regime served also as valuable moral ground to explain precisely why Serbs eventually rose against the Turks. Among many other injustices, sexual misconduct as a particular form of oppression was one of the favorite methods of the new rulers. Practiced on a large scale, that type of excessive behavior was remembered as unforgivable wrongdoing calling for the rightful revenge on evil Turks.³⁴

The last mistake of the self-proclaimed warlords of Serbia was also the most brazen one. Trying to extinguish the fire of rebellion that was in the air, they decided to liquidate all of the Serbian local leaders at once. The event, latter named the “slaughtering of Serbian chiefs”, backfired completely. Instead, it became the main cause for the general Uprising of Serbs in early 1804. Very soon most of the area, except for a few of the larger towns was taken from the Turks. Conveniently enough, the Serbs` main justification at the very beginning of insurrection was that they were still loyal subjects of the sultan, protecting their bare lives from tyrants. Acting at first in agreement with Ottoman authorities, Serbs insisted that they were only against the evil Turks, who had already killed administrative official of the sultan, the vesir of Belgrade, and disturbed the holy peace in his lands.³⁵

Of note is that the terms good and evil Turks were used by Serbian sources as a handy metaphor to distinguish the peaceful, honest majority from the malignant and alien few in Turkish urban communities.³⁶ During diplomatic negotiations with the sultan’s representatives, in 1806, one of the most important demands on the Serbian side was that all the evil Turks, namely krdzaly and janissary, were to leave Serbia for good. It was a cunning tactical move by the Serbian leaders, at the beginning of a long siege and full-scale war, to divide the enemy hidden behind strong walls. Their main demand denied, the Serbs soon turned many Turkish cities into ashes. Fires that were destroying Turkish cities, strongholds, and blockhouses in villages and on crossroads, marked the beginning of the Serbian uprising in 1804.

In general, during the time of the Uprising, Turkish wealth in towns, houses, and stables, their horses, weaponry, and other luxury items were systematically robbed or sold, and the rest was destroyed. One of the most paradigmatic scenes captured in Serbian sources is the depiction of the conquest of Nova Varosh, a small town on the far western border. Karadjordje, a leader of Serbian fighters, was mesmerized by the beauty of local architecture, for houses were painted even better than churches from within. Inspired by that sight, he exclaimed that town should be spared completely owing to its beauty and given to the winning side of the war. But when first hearing that the Turks were coming back, one of the local commanders, a priest from Gucha, cried instantly, “Burn it … to the last house!”³⁷

Burning as a form of war tactic, and also as an efficient form of reprisal, was very common in all the Europe of the Napoleonic wars. French Marshal Marmont, a governor of Ilyric provinces, described the enormous joy of his Dalmatian Christian solders, eager to burn down Muslim houses in a punitive raid throughout Western Herzegovina.³⁸ The same was the fate of several Turkish towns in Serbia, too. Rudnik, a small castle in central Serbia and the court of the hated Sali-beg, was burnt to the ground as a symbol of shameful tyranny. The fires of Rudnik, turning a winter night sky into purple red, were greeted by the Serbian rebels who also set ablaze the town of Valjevo.³⁹

From a minor political event, the Serbian rebellion against the janissary tyranny gradually escalated into a state of open war with whole Ottoman Empire. As it lasted for almost a decade, some practical forms of communication between warlike parties were established, on the basis of daily necessities. Rituals of truce making or the acquisition of protection, by gaining or giving the status of spiritual brotherhood or step-fatherhood, were typical of these. Often they were used to cement different and exact personal bonds between Serbs and Turks, in times of danger, in a moment of captivity for example. They were connected with precise details and formal gestures of good will.⁴⁰ To send an apple as a sign of good intentions, or to share a piece of bread dipped in salt with an opposing side, bore heavy symbolic meaning.⁴¹ Practiced on numerous occasions, such rituals were quite common at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

The absence of a language barrier also provided an excellent opportunity to communicate directly with the enemy, for many Turks in Serbia were actually Bosnians and other Slav Muslims.⁴² The destiny of Captain Kulin, legendary Bosnian military leader, may serve as a colorful example, for it personifies the double cultural identity of many Turkish nobles fighting against Serbs. Less than a year before his death, he admitted in perfect Serbian and in the form of joke that on his court he had two learned men, an Imam and an Orthodox priest, so that he could converse politely with someone. Our source also mentioned that Captain Kulin made a very strong impression on him, as a true gentleman and an authoritarian military commander in one person.⁴³ A double-faced picture of a Turk emerged, an awe-inspiring enemy and an intimate stranger at the same time.⁴⁴

This odd set of dualities is also reflected in a verse of the famous epic song about the Mishar battle, in which Captain Kulin lost his life. Unaware of the tragic events and waiting for good news in his court in Bosnia, Kulin’s wife communicated with her husband through a pair of ravens, feathered messengers and birds of war. She asked her imagined intermediaries about his last exploits in Serbia with exact question:

“Не води ли српскијех робиња,
Које би ме вијерно послужиле?”

(translation)
“Brings He not Serbian slave girls,
That would serve me faithfully?”⁴⁵

Almost like ordering on a shopping spree, she was counting material goods that should be expected from a retaliatory expedition on rebellious infidels. Instead, her husband was killed and his own possessions pillaged. In many cases, during the years of the Serbian uprising, old customs and traditional mildness toward the enemy seemed to disappear completely. It was a new kind of a total war, political and religious, but economical and social as well.⁴⁶

Acts of vengeance gradually led to a morbid, even bizarre fashion of conflict, seen on many other parts of the European battlefield as explicit episodes of war atrocities. Various experiments on the artistic and creative usage of dead enemy corpses were realized as primitive forms of war propaganda. They also served as a strong psychological weapon, striking horror in the hearts of the nearby population. Practices of desecration and mutilation of dead bodies found its strongest expression in exposing publicly whole piles of heads of the enemy. In its massive form, this type of incident took place in at least two separate events in 1809. On both occasions, deliberate heaping of the heads happened at border-line locations and in territory highly disputed between Serbs and Turks.

In light of those facts, these practices could rationally be explained only as a special mixture of a religious and psychological kind of absolute war at its highest peak. Serbian sources did not evade such distasteful facts, for only through them we can learn that after a battle of Sijenica, Serbs had cut off and impaled on short wooden sticks most of the 2,500 enemy heads. Owing to a shortage of more wooden sticks, they simply placed the rest of the heads on the earth, in lines beneath the impaled ones, thus forming an unusual temporary monument, a kind of barbarous but powerful triumphant sign.⁴⁷

Turkish reprisal against Serbs was swift and expanded boundaries of cruelty even further. That same year, after a great Serbian defeat near town of Nish, Turks erected an everlasting monument made from almost one thousand Serbian sculls, taken after the battle. Heads of dead Serbs were used instead of bricks; they were firmly fixed into the frontage of square construction several meters high. It was a unique monument made to honor the great Turkish victory. Local Christians, however, named it a Scull-tower, which came to be the most powerful symbol of glorious fallen heroes.⁴⁸

After many bitter disappointments and numerous mutual betrayals, mercy had vanished and harsh treatment against the enemy became a routine. Even a vesir of Belgrade who was promised safe passage to Nish was killed and robbed in a road ambush organized by Serbs.⁴⁹ Especially after the total fall of Belgrade in 1807, the Turks, who gave themselves in good faith and trust, were often tricked, put to death, or otherwise deprived.⁵⁰ Against the best advice of Serbian Mitropolit Stefan Stratimirovich not to offend Turkish religious feelings and moral standards, the triumphant Serbian army in Belgrade did just the opposite.⁵¹

Individual religious conversion from Islam to Christianity, either through a form of forced marriage or by some similar coercive measure, was in progress. And while some dozens of the poorest Turkish craftsmen remained in their homes and with their Islamic fate, others were compelled to depend on the mercy of the Serbian authorities. And it was well known that only Christians could receive free bread in times of need.⁵² The number of unprotected members of the Turkish community in Belgrade begging for a piece of bread was so vast that it was literally hard to cross the street.⁵³

Interesting details connected to the question of mixed marriages and relations may be extracted from autobiographies, such as that of Nicifor Ninkovich. At Karadjordje’s court in Topola, the author saw a man dying in agony, after the gravest abuse. Ninkovich learned that it was some unfortunate Serb, who had come to the court asking for a permission to marry a Turkish girl. But instead of his request being granted, the man was beaten to death by the leader of uprising himself.⁵⁴ This unusual outcome was a direct consequence of an earlier Karadjordje’s order, strictly forbidding such practice to ordinary people. At the same time the Serbian leader, who was also a married man, had his own secret love affair with a certain Turkish girl named Mariana. Disguised as a boy and having short hair, this mysterious woman had followed him throughout the years 1807 and 1808. To the dismay and unpleasant surprise of his compatriots, the Serbian leader gave away to this personal weakness.⁵⁵

So it seems that the question of the enemy inside, the temptation of the destructive force brought by the war was the great turning point for every individual. It was not simply an economical matter but rather an ethical and a spiritual one.⁵⁶ According to the customs of war, many Serbian leaders also took Turkish slave girls as a sign of their ultimate power and as legitimate booty. A typical example of a local commander who had gradually turned into a great master of the eastern area of Serbia was that of Milenko Stojkovich. He became known as a person who enjoyed fashionable, luxury items and public spectacles. In appearance he resembled more a great Levantine gentleman of the time than the modest merchant he had actually been before the war.⁵⁷ Finally, against all religious norms and common sense, Stojkovich even created his own harem of nymphs and concubines.⁵⁸

Excessive acts by Serbian commanders and the polygamist tendencies some of them practiced openly were polar opposites of the basic standards of honesty traditionally revered by the Serbian community. The injustice and ruthlessness toward the Turks, as many wise people predicted, would be most severely punished if the former masters were ever to return to Serbia. That great threat materialized soon after the Serbian uprising finished in military disaster in 1813. When Ottoman forces finally reoccupied the land, Serbs and Turks switched roles once again. Scenes of bloodbaths and unspeakable horrors followed, while Turkish revenge in Serbia burst out as a full scale event after ten years of frustration.

Details from Goya’s most infamous sketches, Disasters of war, referring to the atrocities of the Napoleonic wars in Spain, could also be seen in Serbia in the fall of 1813. Short but gruesome, similar expression at that time came from Ibrahim Manzur, a new Muslim and an ex-French royalist, who came in Serbia under protection of mighty Bosnian army leaders. He stressed that in spite of the mild weather and the beautiful landscape, it was most unpleasant to roam in the vicinity of Belgrade in autumn 1813, since the all-pervasive stench was unbearable. Roads were infested with collections of impaled or otherwise mutilated human bodies, half eaten by dogs. He also noticed that roads to Bosnia were clogged with numerous slaves and cattle taken in Serbia as a war prize.⁵⁹

In Belgrade, at least, Turkish anger against Serbs had its own practical limitations, as attested to by several local autobiographies. If taken as loyal and obedient subjects, Serbs could experience a totally different kind of reality. And while hundreds of their countrymen were sold daily on the Belgrade slave market, a few Serbs enter into prodigious merchant enterprises with Turks. The memoirs of Maksim Evgenovich, who stayed in Belgrade at the time when most of the Serbs were fleeing to Austria, provided a picture of an opportunistic situation for those who could earn.⁶⁰

Outside Belgrade and in the rural areas, however, perpetual Turkish revenge had instigated the short but bloody Second Uprising in spring 1815. After several fierce battles, most of the sacrifices made from 1804 onward were rewarded with the semi-independent political status of Serbia. A new national leader, Milosh Obrenovich, made a successful peace agreement with the Turks and applied a new strategy. Acting under a great Turkish umbrella and practicing the art of the possible, he formally hung him-self on a Sultan’s sleeve, as his spiritual stepfather and protector, Bosnian vezir, had advised him to do.⁶¹ Through a formal submission, Milosh Obrenovic obtained an excellent opportunity to destroy a former order of power, organized in 1804.⁶²

In the position of the new ruler, Milosh Obrenovich played several roles at once. To his Christian subjects he represented the liberator, but at the same time he was a harsh master for almost a quarter of a century. Shrewd and intelligent, from illiterate peasant he gradually became the most powerful figure in Serbia. His concept of rule had to be simultaneously simple and flamboyant, practical and powerful. This original mixture of former administrative knowledge with a touch of Oriental despotism was a winning combination. Contemporaries pointed out that the behavior and manners of their master were most unpleasant, resembling the dark times of janissary tyranny.

Projection of might and splendor, oriental and despotic as it might be, was convenient for Milosh Obrenovich in many respects. With power and wealth that he alone could enjoy, he elevated him self high above his subjects. In public, smoking a long pipe and surrounded by many servants and guards, he was usually adorned with expensive Turkish robes, his head topped with a tall white turban.⁶³ Watching Milosh Obrenovich and members of his extended family on one occasion, his personal barber ironically observed that they looked and acted exactly like Turks.

In the meantime, actual Turks who came back to Serbia after 1813 were dispossessed of their former glory, being real victims of new political circumstances.⁶⁴ Foreign travelers depicted pitiful scenes of half-burned Belgrade streets where dozens of poor dwellers were begging for food daily.⁶⁵ Financially ruined, many Turkish landlords were also accepting occasional handouts, given by Milosh Obrenovich. All of them were praying for the good health of Serbian Count, their only protector and financial patron. Finally, most of the indigent Turks, concentrated in Belgrade, were compelled to sell their homes for meager sums and to leave.

They had, however, to arrange their financial transactions with Serbs in complete secrecy, since this practice was formally prohibited by the Ottoman authorities. In a conversation with a certain French traveler, however, a Belgrade vesir explained his action concerning the ban on Turkish estates’ business quite differently. He clarified that it was totally insignificant to a sultan, if those unfortunate people would die in Belgrade or on the streets of any other imperial city. Following that strange logic, he concluded that therefore there was no reason for them to leave their home-town in the first place.⁶⁶ So it seems that complete denial of reality, combined with unshaken pride, was the last but very weak official strategy for governing the once prosperous Ottoman city of Belgrade.⁶⁷

Local Turks were also offended on a more personal level by a new architectural policy of their Serbian neighbors. Rashid Bey was convinced that Christian merchants were building their new tall brick houses with malignant purpose and at the secret command of the evil Count Milosh. Conquering space with their towering upper stories and windows intentionally facing private places and intimate gardens of their Muslim neighbors, they were destroying peace and harmony which had existed previously.⁶⁸ Humiliated and marginalized in his hometown, Rashid Bey as many others finally decided to leave Serbia.

The last remains of the Turkish urban community in Belgrade gradually shrunk, struggling throughout the following decades of nineteenth century. Being cut off geographically from the rest of the Empire and economically ruined, Turks could not sustain themselves and their families just by renting their houses and shops to Christian neighbors. Thus, an ominous prophecy in the popular epic song from the time of Uprising was fulfilled to the letter:

– “Друмови ће пожељет Турака, > А Турака нигде бити неће!”
(translation)
– “Roads will be longing for the Turks, But the Turks will be no more!”⁶⁹

1. Žan Delimo, Strah na zapadu (od XIV do XVIII veka) Opsednuti grad, vol. 2, Novi Sad 1987, pp. 352-377. ↩︎
2. Радивоје Радић, Страх у позној Византији 1180-1453, vol. 2, Стубови културе Београд 2000, pp. 201-240. ↩︎
3. Curiously enough, the first public monument erected in early fifteenth century Serbia to attract the attention of travelers and passengers was connected directly with the Turkish invasion. Made from a white marble stone with a text carved on its front, it was dedicated to the heroic death of Count Lazar Hrebeljanovich in the Battle of Kosovo. It was built by the order of his son, despot Stefan Lazarevich. ↩︎
4. Konstantin the Philosopher was a learned priest originally from Bulgaria, who was forced to flee and took refuge at the court of despot Stefan Lazarevich, after the Turkish invasion. ↩︎
5. Captured as a boy in the town of Novo Brdo in Kosovo, the author was converted to Islam and trained to serve as a janissary in the second half of the fifteenth century. After many years he managed to escape in Poland, returned to Christianity, and began to spread the word about the great Turkish danger. The second part of his book was a study filled with interesting details about the structure of Turkish society, military and political power, local costumes, and beliefs of the Turks. Константин Михаиловић из Островице, Јањичареве успомене или турска хроника, Српска књижевна задруга Београд 1986. ↩︎
6. Prepared to serve the Hungarian king or the Turkish sultan alike, Serb mercenaries eventually became the main aquatic vanguard in Turkish war campaigns. Using a net of local rivers and moving swiftly in their small boats, they terrorized central Hungary, snatching people to sell them into slavery latter. Ђурађ Сремац, Посланица о пропасти Угарског краљевства, Српска књижевна задруга Београд 1987. ↩︎
7. The dispersion of a local political elite that would uphold and cherish ideologically intended narratives, written by the learned, was the most important factor in that process. Yet, the core ideas of those narratives, warning of the omnipotent Turks, were hastily inherited by the European cultural centers, multiplied and later exploited politically. Nedret Kuran-Burčoglu, “Predstave „Turčina“ u nemačkim medijima od ranog modernog doba do prosvetiteljstva”, Imaginarni Turčin, Čigoja štampa Beograd 2010, pp. 84-94. ↩︎
8. Радован Самарџић, Усмена народна хроника, Нови Сад 1978, pp. 38-55, 63-80. ↩︎
9. Epic poetry inherited the soul of lost written works and dispersed a Serbian version of historical truth. In epic material, the appearance of the Turks coincided with loss of personal freedom and national distinctiveness. Those ideas connected the Middle Ages narratives with latter oral forms of historical topics well-liked in Serbian culture. ↩︎
10. Important examples of parallel use of two different styles are works of Iguman of the Studenica monastery, Gerasim Georgievich, and those of a poet, Sima Milutinovich Sarajlija. Those writers had produced both prose and poetic forms of historical narratives. Знаменити догађаи новије србске историје на кратко у везаномь и простомь слогу, списани Герасимомь Георгієвићемь, епископомь шабачкимь, Службени Гласник, Београд 2010; Сима Милутиновић Сарајлија, Историја Србије од почетка 1813е до конца 1815е године, Београд 1888; Сима Милутиновић Сарајлија, Сербијанка, Српска књижевна задруга, Београд 1993. ↩︎
11. The first of those printed narratives was a book by an anonymous author, who made an effort to print his work in 1815 in Venice. It was written in an unusual dramatic form of didactic dialogue, typical in the learned circles of Enlightened Europe, elaborating about true reasons for the downfall of the Serbian uprising in 1813. It passed almost unknown by contemporaries under auspicious title—Сербие плачевно пакипорабощені ловета 1813. Зашто и Како? У разговору порабощеніе Матере сь родным Синомь своимь, коему оставля послъднее свое завещаніе. (Lamenting Serbia and it’s re-enslavement in 1813. Why and how? In a dialogue of a re-enslaved mother and her own son, and her last bequest to him), Службени Гласник, Београд 2009. ↩︎
12. Gathering facts for his histories, he took ambitious expeditions and laborious journeys over distant parts of the Balkan Peninsula, a tremendous work that took the best years of Karadzich’s life. ↩︎
13. Радован Самарџић, Писци српске историје, Београд 2009, pp. 185-201. ↩︎
14. The special quality of his technique lay in its vividness, colorful descriptions, dynamic tempo, and richness of details. It was an interesting, original innovation, not dependent upon any given scientific tradition of the time. ↩︎
15. Through his personal correspondence and relations with the scientific community, Karadzich’s work become well known to several prominent German poets, historians, and collectors of folklore rarities. ↩︎
16. Ranke’s History was published in Serbian in 1864. Леополда Ранка, Историја српске револуције, Београд 1864. ↩︎
17. Another interesting history of the Serbian uprising, published in fragments in 1826, 1827. and 1828, was the work of an Austrian officer, Ernest Gedeon Maretich. He observed the events in Serbia from a military point of view. A complete manuscript was published many years latter. Ернест Гедеон Маретић, Историја српске револуције 1804-1813, Филип Вишњић Београд 1987, pp. 7-11. ↩︎
18. His accounts about the situation in Bosnia and details about the social order in that Ottoman province are most valuable. Maršal Marmont Memoari, Logos Split 1984. ↩︎
19. “Из мемоара Ибрахим-Манзур-Ефендије о неким догађајима у Босни и Србији из 1813 и 1814 године”, Споменик, vol. 22, Београд 1893. ↩︎
20. “Рашид Беја Историја чудноватих догађаја у Београду и Србији”, Споменик, vol. 23, Београд 1894. ↩︎
21. Лазар Арсенијевић, Историја Српског Устанка, vol. 1-2, Просвета Београд 1988; Лазар Арсенијевић, Живот и прикљученија Карађорђа, Београд 2004. ↩︎
22. The last were taken in the form of testimony, similar to Karadzich’s method, given by important figures of the Serbian Uprising several decades after the events. Јанићије Ђурић-Гаја Пантелић-Петар Јокић-Анта Протић, Казивања о Српском Устанку 1804., Српска књижевна задруга Београд 1980. ↩︎
23. Unfortunately, most of his diary was lost but for the few short pages for the years 1807-1810, depicting the situation on the front toward the Turkish town of Vidin. Јеремија Гагић, “Дневник мој у Сербии”, Прилози за историју Првог српског устанка, Слово Љубве Београд 1980, pp. 80-91. ↩︎
24. Yet another interesting project that should be mentioned was a book of who was who in the times of the Serbian uprising, in the form of short biographies. Its purpose was to commemorate not just well-known army leaders but many other almost forgotten heroes. Милан Ђ. Милићевић, Поменик знаменитих људи у српског народа, Српска књижевна задруга Београд 1959. The same author also gathered stories and tales about the Serbian leader in the form of sketches filled with intriguing details omitted from official history. Милан Ђ. Милићевић, Карађорђе у говору и твору, Хипнос Београд 1990. ↩︎
25. Животопис Максима Евгеновића, штампарија Виктора Хорњанскога, Будимпешта 1877. ↩︎
26. Starting with the times of the author’s youth, they described in the form of short sequences the suffering of a typical local Christian community and its exodus during the last Austro-Turkish war. The author’s family also was compelled to leave the village and sought refuge in desolate places to evade the bands of Turkish soldiers returning from the front. Милован Видаковић, Успомене, Чигоја штампа Београд 2003, pp. 34-41. ↩︎
27. Прота Матеја Ненадовић, Изабрана дела, Издавачка Књижарница Зорана Стојановића Сремски Карловци—Нови Сад 2007. ↩︎
28. Latter, when he was accused of being a great rebel, Turkish semiofficial reports nicknamed him shamefully Kara Djaur, or the Black Infidel. ↩︎
29. Milosh Obrenovich, the second Serbian monarch, before the Uprising had often toiled together with his Turkish landlord as a simple farmer. Being a spreznik, he was obliged to share the same plow and to provide one of two oxen to pull it. He also had business relations with other Turks, moving cattle from Serbia to the markets in Bosnia and further west. “Кнез Милош прича о себи”, Споменик, vol. 21, Београд 1893; Милићевић, Поменик, pp. 256-258. ↩︎
30. In his memoirs, Vidakovich made a similar distinction between good and evil Turks. Speaking about the war that was to come, the local Turkish landlord of Vidakovich’s village gave a farewell speech to his peasants, full of fatherly advice and wisdom. Yet, Vidakovich also gave us the picture of a local Turkish soldier, who was a village thug, and a drunk, ready to spill the blood of the innocent. Видаковић, Успомене, pp. 13-17, 32-34. ↩︎
31. Ненадовић, Изабрана дела, pp. 40-42 ↩︎
32. Рашид Беја Историја чудноватих догађaja у Београду и Србији”, Споменик, vol. 23, Београд 1894, pp. 13, 9. ↩︎
33. Exiled Serbian janissaries went only a few hundred kilometers from Belgrade, in Pashaluk of Vidin, where they could enjoy support of yet another janissary, the rebellious ruler of Vidin, famous Osman Pasvanogly. As a self-made ruler in North-west Bulgaria, he became the living icon of all the Balkan janissaries. Rossitsa Gradeva, “Secession and Revolution in the Ottoman Empire at the End of Eighteenth Century: Osman Pazvantoğlu and Rhigas Velestinlis”, Ottoman Rule and the Balkans 1760-1850 Conflict, Transformation, Adaptation, Rethymno 2007, pp. 73-93. ↩︎
34. Sources stated that Sali-beg, a commander of the town of Rudnik, went way too far in this kind of manifestations. Nicknamed cynically “the Bull of Rudnik” for his sexual escapades, he had often organized special erotic parties, roaming from village to village, with his numerous escorts. Јанићије Ђурић—Гаја Пантелић—Петар Јокић—Анта Протић, Казивања, pp. 93-94, 163-165; Ранка, Историја Ranke, pp. 85-86; Маретић, Историја српске револуције, pp. 31-33. ↩︎
35. Contrary to the evil, the good Turks were also called loyal or the Imperial ones. Ненадовић, Изабрана дела, pp. 80, 95. ↩︎
36. One of the main Serbian demands in unfruitful negotiations with local Turks from Belgrade, Rudnik, Shabac, Uzice, and Valjevo fortresses in 1804 and 1805 was to expel all of the strangers and evil elements among them. ↩︎
37. Нићифор Нинковић, Жизнописанија моја, Нолит Београд 1988, p. 6. ↩︎
38. Maršal Marmont Memoari, pp. 173-175. ↩︎
39. Ненадовић, Изабрана дела, p. 82; Јанићије Ђурић—Гаја Пантелић—Петар Јокић—Анта Протић, Казивања, pp. 100-101. ↩︎
40. Ненадовић, Изабрана дела, pp. 61, 74; “Из мемоара Ибрахим-Манзур-Ефендије о неким догађајима у Босни и Србији из 1813 и 1814 године”, Споменик, vol. 22, Београд 1893, pp. 49-50; Арнолд Ван Генеп, Обреди прелаза систематско изучавање ритуала, Српска књижевна задруга Београд 2005, pp. 35-38. ↩︎
41. The ritual of sharing an apple was known as a friendly gesture in the Balkans, from the Middle Ages on. ↩︎
42. Јанићије Ђурић—Гаја Пантелић—Петар Јокић—Анта Протић, Казивања, pp. 102-104. ↩︎
43. Ненадовић, Изабрана дела, p. 135. ↩︎
44. Ranke stated that Bosnian Turks were deeply devoted to local epic poetry. Of course, in their version of epic songs, all the Serbian characters were replaced with analogue Muslim heroes. Ранка, Историја, pp. 56-57. ↩︎
45. Милорад Суреп-Панић, Филип Вишњић живот и дело, Просвета Београд 18967, p. 186. ↩︎
46. After the battle, noble Bosnians were hunted down by Serbians eager for rich spoils and expensive oriental clothing. Some of them were killed even in Austrian territory to where they had managed to escape. ↩︎
47. Јанићије Ђурић—Гаја Пантелић—Петар Јокић—Анта Протић, Казивања, p. 289. ↩︎
48. Božidar Jezernik, Divlja Evropa, Beograd 2007, pp. 162-165. ↩︎
49. Rashid bay stated that Belgrade Turks instantly knew what had happened to their vesir when they saw Serbs returning, wearing the bloody hats of the vesir’s personal servants who had just been killed. “Рашид Беја Историја чудноватих догађaja у Београду и Србији”, Споменик, vol. 23, Београд 1894, p. 16. ↩︎
50. Leopold fon Ranke tried to justify the Serb action by stating that nothing better could be expected from people who had high regard for vengeance over their enemies. Ранка, Историја, pp. 127-128; Вук Караџић, Историјски списи, vol. 2, Београд: „Просвета“, 1969, p. 67. ↩︎
51. These events were described as great sins upon the souls of Serbian leaders. But even Karadjordje himself could not stop or prevent all of the incidents of this kind. Ненадовић, Изабрана дела, p. 86. ↩︎
52. There were even some attempts to convert young Turkish boys into Christianity. That experiment took place in Belgrade from 1808 but was abandoned some years latter. Арсенијевић, Историја Српског Устанка, vol. 1, pp. 362-364. ↩︎
53. Караџић, Историјски списи, vol. 2, pp. 214-215. ↩︎
54. Нинковић, Жизнописаница, p. 42. ↩︎
55. Арсенијевић, Живот и прикљученија Карађорђа, p. 45. ↩︎
56. There were cases of murder inside the Serb army camps for pure greed and the want of a beautiful horse or a silver knife taken from a dead Turk. ↩︎
57. The famous military chief of the Krajina region, Hajduk Veljko Petrovich, had also reorganized his personal life in a hedonistic fashion similar to the opulent style of Milenko Stojkovich. ↩︎
58. Караџић, Историјски списи, vol. 2, pp. 97-99. ↩︎
59. “Из мемоара Ибрахим-Манзур-Ефендије о неким догађajима у Босни и Србији из 1813 и 1814 године”, Споменик, vol. 22, Београд 1893, pp. 51-52. ↩︎
60. Similar was the experience of Nicifor Ninkovich, who came to Belgrade to work several years after Evgenovich did. Their personal contributions of written details of local destinies and experiences should not to be ignored if the complex position of a simple, anonymous individual is to be understood. Нинковић, Жизнописанија, pp. 87-91, 282-283; Животопис Максима Евгеновића, pp. 17-21, 30-37. ↩︎
61. Караџић, Историјски списи, vol. 2, p. 71. ↩︎
62. As an extended arm of Turks, he exterminated his own political opponents, killing even Karadjordje in year 1817. ↩︎
63. The common insult, he threw at those who did not act according to his will was – “Sikter“, which was Turkish for – “beat it“! ↩︎
64. Unable to function without the help of the common people, they willingly accepted anyone who was capable of working and producing whether Christian or Serb. ↩︎
65. Ото Дубислав Пирх, Путовање по Србији у години 1829, Ђорђе Магарашевић, Путовање по Србији у 1827. години, Просвета Београд 1983, pp. 44-47; Караџић, Историјски списи, vol. 2, p. 228. ↩︎
66. “Србија у години 1834 писма грофа Боа-ле Конта де Рињи, министру иностраних дела у Паризу о тадашњем стању у Србији”, Споменик, vol. 24, Београд 1894, p. 17. ↩︎
67. After the Principality of Serbia had gained formal autonomous status in 1830, it became obvious to all that it was lost case for the rest of the Ottoman Empire. ↩︎
68. “Рашид Беја Историја чудноватих догађaja у Београду и Србији”, Споменик, vol. 23, Београд 1894, pp. 33-34, 39. ↩︎
69. Милорад Суреп-Панић, Филип Вишњић, p. 143. ↩︎