Book Description

Volume 2 picks up the story of Macedonia from the triumph of Ottoman rule in Macedonia, and the consequent insertion of Islam into the Balkans. This led not only to protracted rivalry between Islam and Christianity, but also to the introduction of both variants of Islam, Sunni and Shia. As elsewhere, this gave rise to periodic upheavals when Shia factions tried to challenge the authority of the Sunni Ottoman State. Sunni – Shia tensions have never quite disappeared in Macedonia. Later topics include the violent but incompetent Macedonian struggle against Ottoman rule between 1878 and 1909, Macedonian involvement in the Balkan Wars and World War I, the demographic upheavals of the period, and the renewed Bulgarian insurgency against Yugoslavia between the World Wars. Macedonia’s half-hearted involvement in World War II, and the Communist insurgency in Greece in 1944–49 left a lingering legacy of fear and distrust that even today colours the attitudes of the Greeks towards their Macedonian neighbours. The book also reviews the less-than-admirable history of Mount Athos in its decadence during the modern and contemporary periods. Communist rule between 1944 and 1990, much neglected in research on Macedonia, is treated in its own chapter, which explains the imposition of Communism and its eventual abandonment in response to its utter developmental failure. The collapse of Communism also led to the fragmentation of the former Yugoslavia – a protracted and murderous affair, from which the Macedonians were lucky to escape lightly. The final chapter is devoted to the travails of the insecure new Macedonian Republic. Though the Republic traces its (alleged) origin to the ancient Macedonian kingdom, it only achieved statehood in 1991 by a historical accident. It was immediately embroiled with Greece over the question of its identity and of its very existence. Both volumes throw light on this piece of unfinished political business, and the ways in which Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria have sought to misuse their historical experience to justify their conflicting claims on the territory.