Preventivne mere od širenja kuge i značaj očuvanja javnog zdravlja u Srbiji u XVIII i prvoj polovini XIX veka

International Conference “The War That Never Ended. Postwar Continuity and New Challenges in the Aftermath of the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, 1918–1923”, organized on 24–26 October 2019 in Krakow and Przemyśl, it was an excellent opportunity to discuss the phenomenon of key years 1918–1923 in the history of countries that arose from the ruins of the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire. The truce in Compiegne (11.11.1918), as has been proven many times in historiography, had only symbolic significance for Central and Eastern and Southeastern Europe and did not bring decisive decisions for the region. This area became a place of numerous conflicts over borders, ethnic and social friction, resettlement of people, the involvement of intellectuals in politics or even violence aimed at physical elimination of entire groups and communities. It turns out that the new nation-states in this formation period strongly benefited from the imperial heritage of their predecessors, despite the declaration of paving new roads. The conference gathered almost 40 speakers from many European countries as well as from Canada and the United States of America.

Géza Pálffy. <i>Hungary between Two Empires 1526–1711</i>.

Raluca Bianca Roman, Sofiya Zahova, and Aleksandar G. Marinov, eds. <i>Roma Writings. Romani Literature and Press in Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe from the 19th Century until World War II</i>

From 1527 until 1606, there was nearly constant fightingon the long frontier in Hungary and Croatia that divided the Ottoman Empire from the Habsburg monarchy. The conflict began when Sultan Suleiman the Lawgiver invaded Hungary in 1526 and defeated King Louis II Jagellio, who died trying to escape. Thereafter, Hungary was claimed by Suleiman, by Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, and by thevojvodof Transylvania, Janós Szapolyai. Apart from the “Long” Turkish War of 1593–1606, major invasions from either side were infrequent. The Habsburg monarchy and the Ottoman Empire also agreed to several multiyear treaties of peace, starting in 1547. When a treaty had elapsed, both powers usually accepted truces in the interim. Yet the 1547 Treaty of Edirne reflected the priorities of distant capitals. Emperor Charles V had to have calm in Hungary in order to pursue his plans against the Protestant Schmalkaldic League in Germany; Suleiman needed quiet in the west, so as to march east against Shi'ite Iran, the Ottoman Empire's main enemy. But neither Charles nor Suleiman required more than a semblance of peace in Hungary. Hence, Ferdinand, like his new adversary, thepaşaor governor-general of Buda, had to deal with border garrisons eager for booty and angry subjects demanding retaliation. The counterpart of imperial peace wasKleinkriegin Hungary and Croatia.

During the 19th century, particularly in its second half, significant changes occurred in international relations and the territorial organization of Europe and the world. The collapse of traditional empires, the rise of nationalism, the expansion of imperialism, and the pursuit of a balance of power shaped the dynamics of the geopolitical landscape of the time. The whirlpool of these changes could not be avoided by the Sublime Ottoman State, as the influences from neighboring regions on its territorial integrity, internal, and foreign policies were too strong. All of this was undertaken by the great powers in the context of resolving the “Eastern Question.” In attempting to resist the incursions from both external and internal forces, while contemplating its territorial integrity, the Ottoman Empire was compelled to implement certain administrative changes during the period of Tanzimat reforms, which were essentially geostrategic considerations aimed at preserving control over parts of the Balkans and all that entailed, in a situation where territorial losses were inevitable. During this time, the Ottoman Empire found itself in the vortex of great power interests. Russia sought protection for the Christian population within the Ottoman Empire and access to the Mediterranean, while the Habsburg Monarchy had territorial interests in the Balkans. On the other side were Great Britain and France, both of which opposed Russia's access to the Mediterranean and thus advocated for the survival of the Ottoman Empire. By navigating between the interests of these powers, the Ottoman Empire managed to extend its presence in the Balkans for another thirty-four years following the Congress of Berlin in 1878. The complex demographic structure of the population in the Ottoman provinces in the Balkans was one of the factors that temporarily delayed the resolution of the “Eastern Question.” However, after all the significant historical upheavals—1878 was certainly one of those for the Ottoman Empire—a considerable part of the Muslim population was condemned to a grueling struggle for survival, retreating towards the still secure zones, which were essentially small and rare oases in the Balkans still under Ottoman control. Various types of insecurity—property, legal, personal, and others—forced the Muslim population to emigrate towards the Asian part of the Empire in search of a safer refuge. One of the transit territories on this path was the territory of the Kosovo Vilayet. The arrival of a large number of muhacirs to this area after 1878 led to a series of negative phenomena, particularly in the more significant urban centers. Certainly, there were individuals who skillfully exploited the situation to enrich themselves or to build personal political careers. Although largely educated in Western European countries, Ottoman diplomatic representatives and officials failed to navigate the whirlpool of the impending changes that affected the Ottoman Empire. The political moves they made after 1878 concerning the Balkan territories were short-term and lacked a strong impact on international relations. The aim of this paper is to highlight the geostrategic plans of the Ottoman Empire regarding the Kosovo Vilayet and the unfolding of the Eastern Question up until 1881, when the “Prizren League,” an organization fighting for the national interests of the Albanian people, was dissolved.

In the early-twentieth century, state institutions and voluntary associations in the Ottoman, Habsburg, and Romanov empires envisioned a “new generation” of imperial subjects to reinvigorate patriotism serving as the bond between state and society. Anxieties linked to military inadequacy vis-à-vis other empires combined with the fear of social unrest and moral disorder, which drew increased attention on the discipline of youth. In those three Eurasian empires, forms of premilitary training involving children and teenagers (mostly aged six to nineteen) emerged from private initiatives and were quickly coopted by imperial authorities. The article discusses institutions like Türk Gücü in the Ottoman Empire, the Poteshnye Roty in the Russian Empire, and the Reichsbund der Jugendwehren und Knabenhorte in the Habsburg monarchy. Although their visibility in illustrated magazines and other media grew rapidly in the early 1910s, those projects mirrored the empires’ difficulties in implementing activities throughout vast territories. Premilitary training caused frictions between ministries and raised new issues of belonging and loyalty in those multiethnic societies. Eventually, the envisioned militarized imperial youth did not prove particularly effective in the framework of the First World War. However, those initiatives reveal a crisis in politics of difference as they reinforced activism in the name of empire albeit mostly limited to the empire’s respective “dominant” group: Sunni Turks, Catholic Germans, and Orthodox Russians. In so doing, premilitary training tested forms of mass mobilizations and remained a reference with which post-imperial societies in the republics of Turkey and Austria as well as the Soviet Union had to reckon.

Systematic archaeological research in the fortified medieval city of Caransebeș/Sebeș began in 2017. The fortified medieval city, attested for the first time in historical records in 1290 during the reign of Ladislaus IV of Hungary, belonged to an area of Byzantine influence in the 12th century, and later (most probably between 1186 and 1231–1232) fell under the influence of the second Vlach-Bulgarian Tsardom. Around 1231–1232 the discussed region (together with Caransebeș) became part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Both the city and the surrounding region had a predominantly Vlach population. For archaeological research we had at our disposal several plans of the city dated to the 17–18th centuries. Some time after the 1718 peace treaty signed in Požarevac (Passarowitz) between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy, the Caransebeș fortress was destroyed. Currently, only a few fragments of the fortifications are preserved in its northern area, but further archaeological excavations are needed to establish their precise dating and context. In the context of tensions between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy, the border city underwent rapid transformations over short periods of time during the 17–18th centuries. After 1551–1552, the region and implicitly the city of Caransebeș came under the authority of the Transylvanian princes. It was conquered by the Turks in 1658 and occupied by the Austrians in 1688, who proceeded to rearrange the Italian-style fortifications. The works were not completed, however, because the Ottoman Empire regained possession of the fortress in 1696 and held it until 1718. Over the course of three research seasons, we identified remains of three fragments of structures and a fragment of a ravelin on the north side, two fragments of the stone-paved road that crossed the city, and two fragments of the inner city walls. In the central area west of the road, both medieval and modern houses, fragments of iron processing workshops, and a possible pharmacy or spice shop were partially excavated. Moreover, on the surface of the ground inside the inner fortification, traces of walls were discovered, while on its outside – human osteological remains, indicating the presence of a church, especially when we consider that the plans of the fortress dated to the end of the 17th century, and that a Polish coin issued in 1627 during the reign of Sigismund III Vasa (1587–1632), most likely resulting from a destroyed grave, was discovered in situ. Overall, we can say that we were able to correlate cartographic, historical, and archaeological information in order to clarify the stages of the spatial development of the city, especially during the 16–18th centuries. Based on historical sources, we were able to find out more about who its inhabitants were, their religions, and the transformations that took place from a religious and administrative point of view.

This paper emphasizes an importance of the document from 1725, which was so far neglected in the historiography of the Bosnian medieval tombstones - stećci. It is a report written after the establishment of the border between the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire as a result of the Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718. Although very brief, this document undoubtedly indicates the existence of a necropolis of stećci-tombstones in Bijeljina, or its immediate vicinity, as well as in the area of the settlement of Kobaš on banks of the river Sava. After the mention of stećci in the travelogue of Benedikt Kuripešić in 1530, these data represent the second oldest mention of these medieval tombstones in written sources, and per se deserve attention. There are indications that the monuments mentioned in this report, or at least some of them, could be linked to those stećci that were ‘’sensationaly’’ discovered in 2002 at the foundations of the demolished Atik mosque in Bijeljina. Keywords: stećci-tombstones, Bijeljina, Bosna, Sava, Treaty of Passarowitz, Habsburg Monarchy, Ottoman Empire, Vlachs, Kobaš

Bosanska Dubica is situated on the northwestern border of Bosnia, among a series of small towns along the Una River that have witnessed significant events throughout various historical periods. This paper aims to contribute to the exploration of Dubica's past and to understand its importance as a border town during the Ottoman era, a subject that has been modestly addressed in existing historiography. One of the research objectives is to highlight the archival potential available for further studies on the history of towns at both local and regional levels in the Bosanska Krajina during the extended Ottoman period. The introductory section provides basic information about Dubica's administrative position during the Ottoman period, from its incorporation into Ottoman rule up to 1878. Until the Tanzimat reforms, Dubica held the status of a nahija and was administratively part of the Kobaš, Novosel, Kostajnica, or Banja Luka kadiluks. From the mid-19th century, Dubica, as a mudirlik, was included in the Bihać kaymakamlik. Located on the border between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy, Dubica experienced an intense history characterized by frequent changes, especially in terms of territorial jurisdiction. In 1538, military units under Bosnian sanjak-bey Gazi Husrev-bey captured Dubica, incorporating it into the Ottoman Empire during a broader campaign to conquer territories of the medieval Bosnian state that had come under Hungarian control after 1463. For the next 150 years, until 1688, Dubica remained continuously under Ottoman rule. From the late 17th to the late 18th century, Dubica fell under Habsburg control on three occasions (1687, 1716, and 1788) during the well-known Ottoman-Austrian wars, totaling 47 years under Habsburg rule. Historiography has extensively covered the last major Ottoman-Austrian war at the end of the 18th century, known in literature as the Dubica War, due to the fact that the Pounje area was one of the main military targets of Austrian generals, and Dubica was one of the main sites of significant military operations. This war broke out after the Ottoman Empire declared war on the Russian Empire in 1787, with the Habsburg Monarchy, as Russia's ally, joining the conflict in 1788. On August 26, 1788, General Gideon Laudon captured Dubica; however, during peace negotiations in Svištov, it was returned to Ottoman possession, specifically to the Bosnian Eyalet. As every historical topic is determined by historical sources, this research has been guided by archival materials in exploring Dubica's history. Among the topics covered are the fortress garrison, with a special focus on the payment of soldiers in the Dubica fortress; the handover of Dubica to the Ottoman side after the end of the Dubica War in 1795-1796; the construction and repair of the Dubica fortress and other structures in the area; appointments to various duties and the names of Ottoman officials in Dubica; legal violations and various irregularities in Dubica; and Dubica's mosques. The primary sources for this paper include professional literature and archival materials available in the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul, covering the period from the 16th to the 19th century. The paper presents a thematic-chronological analysis and contextualization of available archival documents, shedding light on previously unknown events, processes, and personalities from the past of Ottoman Bosanska Dubica.

At the end of the Middle Ages, the Black Sea region became an area of increasing political importance. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in this region (the Black Sea and the Azov Sea) and even in the regions of Southeastern and Eastern Europe, the interests of numerous political players were confronted: Genoa, Venice, Florence and Pisa, Vatican, the Holy Roman Empire, the kingdoms of England, France and Aragon, the Duchy of Burgundy, the Byzantine Empire, Georgia, Russian principalities, Tatar states, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Kingdom of Poland, Hungary and Wallachia, the Mamluk Sultan and, finally, the growing Ottoman Empire were just a short list of actors on the political scene at that time. However, against the background of the growing Ottoman threat, neither the metropolis of the colonies itself, Genoa, nor Casimir IV, the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, nor Vladislaus II, the King of Bohemia and of Hungary, who was also an enemy of the Ottomans, could help Caffa. Caffa and other Genoese and Venetian colonies were captured by the Ottomans in 1475. Thus, we can see that there were numerous wars in Southeastern Europe in the fifteenth century, which eventually led to the domination of the Ottoman Empire.

The Romanian Orthodox Church

Epidemics always posed a danger for the human communities. One of the most terrible and feared diseases was the plague. Confronted with this problem, the authorities of the XVIII-th century issued a set of directives to try to tackle this problem. Similar measures were taken to avoid the spread of zoonotic diseases. Unfortunately, in the XVIII-th century, there was still a large gap between the noble intentions of theoreticians or the directives of the authorities and the reality in the rural world, as the lives of the villagers would be negatively influenced by adverse weather conditions or the insufficient fertility of the soil. In turn, insufficient food and poor hygiene would make the inhabitants of the rural world more prone to the spread of epidemic diseases. In spite of this, the situation improved gradually during the XVIII-th century and later. However, the quarantine system of the military border, which extended along the frontier between the Habsburg and the Ottoman Empire, proved to be an efficient system to avoid the spread of the plague from the Ottoman provinces in the Habsburg monarchy and generally in Central and Western Europe. #is quarantine system had a clear set of rules, which had to be applied according to the geographical proximity and the level of danger posed by an outbreak of plague in the Ottoman Empire. Generally, the people who came from the Ottoman Empire had to stay for a certain period in quarantine and during this period their goods were washed and cleaned of any potential infection using different methods. #e punishments for those who tried to avoid this quarantine system were severe, ranging from prison to execution. Two documents from the county archives, presented in this study, allow for a better understanding of the concrete quarantine measures taken by the central and local authorities in different epidemiological situations.

This chapter deals with cultural asymmetries and hierarchies between the dominant German-language theatre and the national theatres in the Habsburg Monarchy in the nineteenth century. The central aim is to show the key role of German-speaking theatre migrants in the establishment of a professional theatre culture in the countries of today’s Eastern and Southeastern Europe. By doing this, the chapter explores the power structures that enabled the transnational establishment of the German-language theatre in linguistically, culturally, and ethnically very heterogeneous Crown Lands of the monarchy and examines the patterns of internal colonisation in the monarchy.

The “Franco-Russian Marseillaise”: International Exchange and the Making of Antiliberal Politics in Fin de Siècle France

Reviews 343 chief Hamhougias, who was granted—most exceptionally—a second amnesty in May 1845 because he "had been prevented by unavoidable circumstances from giving himself up to the authorities" in time for the first one (p. 121)?; or discuss the activities of the irregulars who were sent to Thessaly in 1878 by irredentist activists with inadequate funds, with the result that they "robbed without fear of punishment those they had gone to liberate" (p. 204)? Koliopoulos' work raises further issues: to what extent did demographic and economic factors contribute to the decline of brigandage ? How did politicians from the Péloponnèse regard their Rumeliot colleagues? What factors underlay the reorganization of the regular army after 1896? If these and other questions are answered with half the erudition displayed in Brigands with a Cause we shall be most fortunate. Mark Mazower Princeton University Olga Katsiardi-Hering, H Ελληνική Παϕοικία της ΤεϕγÎ-στης, 17511830 . Athens: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Philosophy. 1986. Pp. 761 (2 volumes). Strategically located at the head of the Adriatic Sea, Trieste remained in the shadow of Venetian economic and maritime power in the middle ages. To escape the menace of its powerful neighbor, the city placed itself under Habsburg authority. But it became a major port only in the 18th century as Austrian political and economic power grew in southeastern Europe. The destiny of the city and its residents then, was bound up with the fortunes and development of the Habsburgs and their state. So it was for the Greeks who migrated there and formed a colony in the mid-18th century. This detailed monograph , a Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Athens, uses a wide range of primary sources to examine the social life and economic development of one of the more successful nazioni that made up the city's cosmopolitan society. The author chooses the term "colony" to make a clear distinction between the coming of Greeks to Trieste, their economic activities there and the body of institutions they created when they formally became a community. Her study weaves together accounts of the larger historical currents which affected the Greek presence in the city, the 344 Reviews functioning of their various community institutions, and their economic progress. There is material here for students of both macroand micro-history, though the author remains focused on the Greek community when relating it to the larger world. Trieste may be seen as a geographic fulcrum for the political and economic relationships between western and eastern Europe in the 18th century. It was more than a point of rest, of course, for it provided a dynamism of its own. The lever for those relationships was certainly the rationalizing power of the Austrian state. That lever became more formidable with the Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718, when both the Ottoman Empire and Venice were forced to give up territory and acknowledge the power of the Habsburgs in southeastern Europe. The author notes the rationalist, paternalistic and authoritarian policies that Maria Theresa and her son Joseph used to increase the political and economic strength of their state. Ironically, because the requisite economic talent was not available to develop Austrian trade in the Mediterranean, the Habsburgs resorted to inducing the subjects of the Ottoman Empire to take up residence in the West where they were offered religious toleration, lower tariff rates and a free port. This led to a dyadic tension as Greek citizens of the Habsburg Monarchy competed with compatriots who were Ottoman subject and the Greek Orthodox asserted their identity v^à -vL· the Slavic Orthodox in Trieste. Neither phenomenon was unique to Trieste, of course. But with some good primary sources, the author is able to discuss these developments against the backdrop of the dramatic changes of Enlightenment and Revolutionary/Napoleonic Europe. Anyone familiar with the life of ethnic communities, whether in the Old World or New, in the last 200 years will note similarities in the Trieste koinotita. But there are some variations to the pattern. The Greeks' desire to have priests who spoke their own language in Trieste was partly a reaction to the growing influence of the Serbian Orthodox metropolitanate at Karlowitz as the number of...