The main feature of the volume seemingly is the constant preoccupation to criticize Florin Curta’s hypothesis regarding the early Slavs. This attitude firstly occurs on p. 8 and goes throughout the entire volume, with a study (the last, p. 341 ff.) written by Jiří Rejzek. I would begin with this study, representative for the attitude of all, or almost all, authors.Thus, on p. 342: “Curta’s revolutionary and provocative theory has met with little response in linguistic circles and, where it has, the comments have been relatively lenient” (and quotes two works of Greenberg and Boček). The assertion is not supported by facts, though: Several linguists have had an attitude pro or against Curta.The only coherent (and ample) study belongs to Tomáš Klír, which is also, at the same time, the only genuine interdisciplinary approach. The purpose of the study, perhaps the core of a larger volume in preparation, is to analyze the structure and typology of the cultural phenomena in northeast Bavaria, starting from historical data and also considering place names as a relevant source of information. The only (major) flaw I can identify in Klír’s approach is that he does not seem to know an old, but still valid, study of Petar Skok.1Anti-Curtanism seems to be a kind of ritual throughout the volume, leading to entirely embarrassing assertions. Thus, on page 151: “This paper discusses methods for dealing with archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence. It shows that only combined evidence can provide the necessary basis for an explanation. Otherwise, hypotheses such as Curta’s about the Slavs being a Byzantine invention cannot attempt to provide an explanation” (Jadranka Gvozdanović). She fails to offer a more reliable perspective in the next study too, written together with Václav Blažek. The two authors aim at presenting “20 Celto-Slavic lexical parallels” (p. 171 ff.). The discussion regarding the possible Celtic influence on Proto-Slavic continues ever since the second half of the nineteenth century without any convincing arguments, and Gvozdanović and Blažek do not offer any further argument either.Other studies in the book would require a dedicated analysis. Henning Andersen uses the term koiné for Common Slavic (p. 11 ff.). If the term koiné may be acceptable, it is extremely doubtful that there ever existed a “Common Slavic language” as it is equally doubtful that there ever existed “Common Indo-European” or “Common Germanic” and so on. These are oversimplified, but comfortable, schemes. Andersen extensively uses the term “Pre-Expansion,” specifically “Pre-Expansion Slavic” (and similar reconstructed phases). To my knowledge, the syntagm “Pre-Expansion Slavic” was first used in 1988 in a paper published in Slavistična Revija. It does not seem to have had much success until its recent spectacular revival in Andersen’s paper, without properly quoting the source.2Harald Bichlmeier approaches the issue of “Old European” river names (p. 43 ff.). The term “Old European” translates Hans Krahe’s syntagm alteuropäisch, which has a completely different meaning than the newer syntagm Old European used by Marija Gimbutas in her works dedicated to the Pre-Indo-European cultural groups.Andrii Danylenko is known for his studies dedicated to the Arabic documents referring to Slavs and to the role of Slavs in history. In this volume, he has chosen to analyze the lack of Uralic influences on Slavic. As compared to other remarkable studies of Danylenko, his approach is rather disappointing.Finally, to note perhaps the best paper on archaeological topics proper. It seems a good symbiosis between an archeologist (Naďa Profant) and a philosopher (Martin Profant). The authors are compelled, in the “traditional” anti-Curta discourse of the volume, to assert that “the obvious Baltic-Slavic correspondences do not allow to postulate that the Slavs emerged at the Byzantine border” (p. 343).The volume seems to be built on a firm ideological basis: adversum Curtam or, at best, with a minimal critical reference to Curta (Tomáš Klír). No author in the volume analyzes what Curta says. Also, there are few references to other concurrent “ethnic processes” (Romanians, Albanians, etc.) that have offered a comparatives perspective. These are just mentioned en passant, for example, on p. 7 (Introduction), and on p. 97 (Boček).All in all, this new volume brings very few “new” data and still fewer perspectives.

The historiography of Bosnia and Herzegovina was enriched in 2023, with a new publication from the Institute for History, Herzegovina Sanjak in the 17th Century. This is the first part of a revised doctoral dissertation by Dr. Sedad Bešlija, defended in November 2015 at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Sarajevo. The study Herzegovina Sanjak in the 17th Century consists of an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion in Bosnian, Turkish, and English, as well as a list of sources and literature, an index, and the author’s biography. At this point, it should be pointed out that when it comes to the history of Bosnia in the seventeenth century, researchers have a significant handicap, which is reflected in the absence of sources, and this consequently resulted in very modest research of Bosnian Eyalet in the seventeenth century. This book represents an effort to change that. The first chapter of the study, titled “General Circumstances in the Ottoman State in the 17th Century,” provides an overview of events that marked the history of the Empire during the time period: the international position of the Ottomans changed, they were forced to wage war on two fronts, they faced numerous internal problems, as well as the rule of too young, mentally unhealthy sultans and the dominance of women at court.The following chapter “Herzegovina sanjak between three peace treaties: administration, economy, architecture, culture, everyday life” is the most extensive part of the study and is further divided into five smaller sections. In them, the author first clarifies the administrative–political boundaries of the Herzegovina sanjak and then the position, role, and power of the Herzegovina sanjakbey in the Ottoman administration, bearing in mind the formation of the Bosnian Eyalet in 1580, when a number of sanjakbeys competencies were taken over by the beylerbey of Bosnia. One smaller subtitle is dedicated to the sanjakbeys of Herzegovina throughout the seventeenth century, in which names and ruling years of the sanjakbeys are provided. In the author’s further presentation, the basics of economic life in the Herzegovina sanjak, and its architecture, which was particularly contributed to by the institution of the waqf are introduced. The author provides a list of religious and profane buildings including those built by/for non-Muslims in the sanjak area. The cultural life of sanjak is shown through the literal production of local people in oriental languages, and the life of an ordinary person is shown through the depiction of jumps from the Old Bridge, the arrival and spread of coffee in Mostar, and the social engagement of women.The third and fourth chapters describe the circumstances and role of the Herzegovina sanjak in the Cretan War (1645–1669) and in The Great Turkish War (1683/84–1699). The Cretan War was not fought directly in Herzegovina sanjak, but attempts to undermine the Ottoman power on its territory were noticeable. The greatest instability in the Herzegovina sanjak in that period was brought by the incursions of uskoks, hajduks, and morlachs, who ere supported by Venice. Great material damage was caused to the sanjak, and people were robbed, impoverished, and killed. Those are the circumstances in which the Herzegovina sanjak welcomed The Great Turkish War and the first great Ottoman military defeat. This sanjak provided the largest number of nefers for the campaign on Vienna, while the above-mentioned incursions continued, so toward the end of the seventeenth century, this sanjak had a very weak defensive position against the Venetians, who had the intention of conquering its territory. The peace treaty in 1699 led to new borders between the Venetians and the Ottomans, which changed the borders and the position of the Herzegovina sanjak—it became a de facto serhad.The book was written based on unpublished sources kept in Istanbul, Dubrovnik, Mostar, Sarajevo and Zaostrog, Makarska, Živogošće, and Omiš. Numerous published sources, travelogues, chronicles, and a variety of literature helped the author to contextualize and systematize the circumstances in the Empire in general and especially in the Herzegovina sanjak. The study is rich in data that spreads light on military, political, economic, and cultural history, but the author tried to enrich the work with some information from everyday life, the role and social engagement of women, and the like. As Dr. Bešlija himself pointed out in the Introduction, Ottoman studies in Bosnia lack a general study of the Bosnian Eyalet in the seventeenth century, so perhaps this is the path that Bosnian historiography must take: thorough work on micro-themes, smaller areas, and administrative units, it should be easier to arrive at a synthesis of the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the seventeenth century.

Abstract In 1976, Lubomír E. Havlík opined that Chapter IX of the text Gesta Regum Sclavorum (Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja) could have been written as early as the ninth century in Great Moravia. In 2023, this opinion was elaborated by Dragana Kunčer, who assumed that the archetype of this part of the GRS originated in 880. The published material summarizes the previous knowledge and presents a complex of arguments in favor of the postulated hypothesis, according to which the original of Chapter IX should have originated in the early autumn of 885. The article aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the genesis of the earlier parts of GRS and to contribute to the debate of whether the concept of Regnum Sclavorum was an original Ottonian invention or a renewed concept from the Carolingian era.

The troubled history of the Balkan region is a testament to its immense geostrategic significance. It is indeed impossible to engage in a historical study of the travails of human history without reference to the Balkan Peninsula. In recent centuries alone, the Balkans formed the geopolitical background to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the eruption of World War I, major aspects of conflict during World War II and the Cold War, as well as the Yugoslav Wars, all of which are still shaping Europe in unpredictable ways.Considering the troubled history of the Balkan Peninsula, its relative absence from the scholarly literature on diplomatic history is puzzling. Its scant presence in the scholarship on intelligence history is even more noteworthy given the important role played by the region in numerous consequential events in world affairs. For this reason, the publication of this edited volume can be described as a meaningful contribution to the relevant scholarship. This well-produced volume inaugurates Peter Lang’s South-East European History series, which is edited by Mihai Dragnea. Not only does this volume shed light on some of the least understood aspects of European diplomacy and intelligence, it also highlights the interface between those two areas of study. Thus, it will serve as a valuable analytical tool for diplomatic historians and intelligence scholars alike.The book’s editors have rightly chosen to engage in this complex subject through the use of carefully selected case studies. In doing so, they manage to treat intelligence activities as normative aspects of state functions and thus recognize their crucial contribution to the formation of policy. In that sense, the book treats intelligence and diplomacy as two distinct yet interacting facets in the practice of international relations. In fact, the entire book represents a conscious effort to insert aspects of intelligence into the study of international relations while also enriching our nascent understanding of intelligence through the prism of diplomatic history. The fruit of this marriage will delight scholars who treat interdisciplinarity and hybridity as assets rather than as weaknesses in research.The editors’ decision to concentrate on the Balkans lends much-needed momentum to ongoing efforts by researchers to penetrate the stifling confines of the Anglosphere, especially in the field of intelligence studies. Indeed, within the European context, the contribution of intelligence operations to the history of Balkan diplomacy is just as rich as those of Central or Western Europe. The chapters in this book manage to demonstrate eloquently that richness through a variety of fascinating case studies from the Ottoman Empire, Romania, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, and Albania, among others. Perhaps more important, the book examines the diplomatic and intelligence-related interactions between these powers as well as their interactions with other leading world powers at various stages of history. Its pages contain repeated references to a host of central state actors, such as France, Great Britain, Germany, Poland, and even the Republic of Venice. Thus, the case studies in this volume closely relate the diplomatic and intelligence activities in the Balkans with the broader context within which they unfolded during various stages of history.Individuals and institutions are given equal attention in the pages of this book. Indeed, the book’s division between a semibiographical section and an operational section is refreshing. It allows readers to absorb the information contained within, in relation to both the human factor and that of institutions. The impression one is left with after reading this book is that prominent individuals were at times instrumental in shaping diplomatic or intelligence responses to security challenges. At the same time, these prominent individuals acted within the security context of their time, and within a rapidly evolving system of relations between Balkan states as well as between the Balkan states and other states in Europe.The book is also characterized by an energy that comes from chapters by contributors whose research will be familiar to seasoned scholars and from chapters by new voices that can only enrich the relevant literature. In light of this dynamism, the potential for further work on this subject is truly enormous. In their introductory note to the volume, the editors note correctly that a comprehensive scholarly account of Balkan intelligence history remains absent from the relevant literature. They also allude to a possible second volume that would focus on Russian-Soviet diplomatic and intelligence operations in the Balkan region. Last, they discuss the potential for the establishment of a “Balkan network for intelligence and diplomatic history.” These options sound extremely encouraging, and one can only hope that future research on the intersection of diplomacy and intelligence in under-researched regions of the world will emerge from this very promising book series.

Abstract The participation of the Cossack formations in the military operations of Dniester in 1992, together with paramilitary forces recruited locally and supported politically and militarily by the Russian Federation, remains a topic known superficially at the level of public opinion and approached almost entirely by chance by qualified researchers. This article aims to put into circulation hitherto unused information; to systematize and interpret the information dissipated in the memoirs, contemporary media, and chronologies drawn up by the participants in the events; and to open the phenomenon (much better developed later) of the mercenary engaged in the interest of the great powers. The authors apply interdisciplinary methodology, borrowed from historical, military, political, sociological, and psychological sciences. Consequently, the conclusions will reveal ideological motivations, tactics, and strategies; alliance and subordination policies; but also serious ethical slippages—all specific to mercenary behavior.