i.

What should be first noted about the early Serbs is their notion of libertarian ethnic organization. From the earliest times, the institution of the zadruga was paramount, being combined into the Rod and eventually into the clan, which was not based on the blood tie. The leader, the zupan, was elected. The emperor of Constantinople made mention of the election of the zupan. The zupan ruled with a council made up of the heads of the various Rods. Therefore, the political life of later medieval Serbs was built from the bottom up, with each level of government, as a matter of informal custom, only dealt with areas in which they were competent to deal. In other words, if a lower level of government could do something efficiently, then it would not be in the jurisdiction of an upper level. In the west, this form of state was called “subsidiary.”

This is not to say there were not class factors, but only that those factors were not necessarily paramount. The representative function never ceased, but increasing clan wars made such ideas less pristine. Contact with the Byzantine empire, as well as the Elder Rome, also assisted in the minor breakdown of representative institutions.

Though the Serbs did recognize a nominal Byzantine suzerainty, they maintained their cultural autonomy and fought all attempts to subvert it. And the central place of the agricultural commune was never dismembered, though Byzantine subjection did introduce some significant changes. Keep in mind that the urbanization of Serbs came only in the latter part of the 19th century, and that by force, though force of a kind few historians understand. The penetration of the banking families from Vienna from the later Karageorgevic monarchs was the proximate cause of this urbanization and the modern debt-economy.

Serbs under Byzantine control were a bit different from independent Serbs offering a strictly formal allegiance to Orthodox Byzantium. A class of small farmers sprang up among the former, renting their property from East Roman lords. There were “bonded tenants,” who were distinguished chiefly by their inability to leave the lord. However, they did not own their own means of production and were thus dependent upon the lord for implements. It is a credit to Byzantium that such lordship was eventually stopped by Imperial decree, becoming increasingly inefficient.

It needs to be noted that it was the stronger inhabitants of the throne who took the more stringent measures to stop the abuses of slavery and bond labor. Emperor Romanus, in 928, made it clear that the banking industries were responsible for such abuses, being the result of “usury.” In this case, it is meant that the manipulation of debt and compound interest were creating a class of slave laborers that were not only a moral blot on the just Byzantine state, but were also a major problem for state coffers and removed many able bodied laborers from the military. It must also be kept in mind that this was also a reference to the Venetians and their papal overlords in that the usurious lords at that time were nearly exclusively Latin in origin.

The Byzantine emperors of this time made no secret of their contempt for the wealthy. The theme system was extended to the Serbs, but its gradual elimination needed to be stopped or the material basis of the military would be threatened. The theme system was an ingenious Byzantine innovation: solders in the army, would be allotted land, from which would come the means of their own subsistence as well as the ability to procure their own weapons and armor. It created a class of middling peasant proprietor/soldiers and was certainly a system that created and maintained loyalty and general prosperity. Byzantium quicky regulated the sale of such lands so as to maintain the theme system or the system of free renters. Many went so far as to demand that land be returned to the poor tillers of the soil without remuneration. Such a notion is impossible in the world of oligarchy or republicanism. The greatest of these men were Basil II, one of the greatest monarchs of all time. Emperor Basil went so far in his war against oligarchy that he demanded of landlords be responsible for the taxes of their poorer peasants in the event the latter could not pay. Needless to say, after the death of Basil the oligarchy reasserted itself and attempted to disestablish all of Basil’s populist measures.

Early medieval Serbia was a loose conglomeration of clans, under an elected zupan. It does not follow that national feeling was not present, however, as many have concluded, for there were times where the clans would unite against a common foe. There was a basis for this unity, but it manifested itself in a radically decentralized universe. However, this decentralization had a tendency to invite invasions of Hungary, Bulgaria, Byzantium and Venice on Serbian territory. It became clear very quickly that the outer coating of natural unity needed to be in place, a monarch with enough power to unite all clans in times of war. This sort of unification, as has already been mentioned in the last chapter, was a major issue for all Serbia in the middle ages.

A state of some type was necessary. The joining together of the smaller zupanates created the Grand Zupan; knezes (local monarchs) such as Peter or Samuel were instrumental is this primordial attempt at unity. Therefore, what developed was a system of confederations of clans under a Grand Zupan, but a confederation true to its name; as each clan maintained its day to day autonomy.

The true significance of Stepan Nemanjia was the ability to create a confederation of confederations that was able to fight off all comers. An unfortunate necessity given the dangers inherent in Balkan life. The “centralization” of political life had nothing to do with the active suppression of regional ways (as it did in France or America), but rather united local lords in the defense of the realm. It remained the case, though, that only strong monarchs such as Uros II or Dusan were able to bring this about. It remained a weakness in Serbian foreign policy.

The zupan of the clan lived in a fortified citadel, the “Grad.” The heads of the rods would send representatives to concilliar meetings, as well as the bishops and abbots, creating a truly representative society and semi-state. These councils, or sabors, maintained their autonomy even as the Serbian state was created under the Nemanjids. The sabors themselves sent representatives to the grand sabor, the head of which was the grand zupan, or king. From this assembly came also the jury, for a jury of one’s peers was also an ingrained notion of the Serbs.

There was never a time when the sabor, at any level, was not active. Such constitutionalism, radically different from the western type, is a part of the Serbian mind. The sabor even elected the bishops of the Serbian church. Therefore, there was no aspect of Serbian society in the middle ages that was not elected from the relevant lower level of power.

All classes were represented, even the commoners were represented by delegates, but at home they chose their own leaders to the local sabor. From among the national sabor was drawn a council of state that regularly advised the grand zupan. There are no surviving documents of Serbian rulers making decisions without reference to the consultation of the assemblies, bishops and local rulers and military chieftains. Under the Nemanja line, the central zupanate appointed a series of governors to the “oblasti,” and, later to the drzhava, or a specific “land holding.” These were not lords in the western sense, but were answerable to the grand zupan himself.

The crown also developed the office of customs agents. Taxes derived from several sources: lands directly under the grand zupanate, taxes on the zadruga, tolls from bridges or roads, taxes on the merchants from Dubrovnik (Ragusa), fines imposed by courts, mining (which permitted the zupanate to coin their own money) and corvee for public projects and occasionally, tribute money in time of war.

ii.

The zupan was originally was the mini state of the extended family. It later became the unit of the larger Nemanjid state. The local zupan was in charge of all common farming lands, and even Dusan’s code made allowance for these commons to remain public property (public in the real sense). The local zupanate was also the policing unit of the region. The next highest level was the grad, or fortified town. Serbs are anti-urban, and this was not a town in the modern sense. These were fortresses built to guard mining centers or other revenue producing areas. These became the residence of the representative of the national sabor for the area in question. Many of these towns were populated by Germans who were imported to take care of the Serbian mines, so significant for Serbian financial independence. Wooden houses would be circled around the church some distance away from the Grad. Goldsmiths, those involved with coining money, were required to live in the grad so they could be watched. Illegal coinage of money was strictly forbidden. Foreigners were taxed by the governor of the grad. In return the Saxons or others were granted complete autonomy within the Serbian nation. These foreigners were also expected to maintain the fortifications of the grad or other fortresses which guarded places of trade.

The selo (village), eventually took the place of the rod. The selo, naturally, derived from the specific family it was made up of. Often, the selo was no more than a few dozen houses with much land, spread out over a large area.. The selo was in charge of public order and the maintenance of roads or bridges in their property. Selos that did not surrender robbers or murders were either fined heavily or completely dispersed. All selos were self-governing and made up a assembly called the zbor. There is no evidence that the central administration ever interfered with the local autonomy of the selo.

Within the selo (or grad) were the “houses.” Each selo had between 20 and 70 houses, each one containing maybe 12 people. The family was the central unit in Serbian political life, and the family was considered responsible for their role in guarding the selo and its lands. They were also responsible for the maintenance of local monasteries.

In Serbian history there was never known the institution of serfdom or slavery. Whether noble or common, all had hereditary property rights and equally could petition the crown. Commoners showed no servility in the face of the king himself, but only gave the king a kiss showing brotherly affection. Such a level of equality, but an equality with honor and devotion to station, was and is unknown in the west.. Commoners always had representation in the grand sabor, though as centralization proceeded, this ended, and only the nobility sat at the national assembly. Local rule, however, was inviolable, and this level of government was the most important to th average peasant proprietor regardless.

Two forms of nobility were prevalent in medieval Serbia: the nobles of the realm, and the provincial nobility. The nobles of the realm were the formerly independent heads of the local zupanates. They sat at the national sabor. Provincials were based on the old heads of the rod or selo and smaller zupanates. These too were represented in the national sabor. Crimes were adjudicated according to one law regardless if the perpetrator was greater or lesser nobility, or commoner. There were differences only in the punishment itself. It is the case, though, that the nobility was a fluid, not a fixed concept. Any commoner who distinguished himself could be made into a noble. Nobles could be demoted. Ability remained the highest means of promotion and maintenance of a high position.

As there were two forms of nobility, there were two forms of noble landholding. There were two forms of noble property: the first, bashtina, or hereditary tenure. The second, pronya, or land in return for service. No one could violate this former form of property unless treason was involved. The lord was responsible for public order within the bashtina. Lords were under the control of their zadruga (a point rarely made in the contemporary literature), and property could not be alienated from its noble holder without their consent. Even property transfers of bashtina were not permitted without the consent of the Grand Zupan. Estates went from father to son, or, barring that, to the male line though to cousins of the 3rd degree. The responsibilities of bashtina landholding were primarily military service to the Tsar. A specific local tax (which was a “kabal,” or 2/3 of a modern bushel.), payable at St. Demetrius’ day. Levies could also be exacted by the Grand Tsar for specific projects such as building roads, forts, or bridges.

The land awarded for service, the pronya, existed only in usufruct, that is, could only be held, not sold. No right of alienation existed for service-tenure land. Upon the death of the pronyar, the land reverted to the crown. Any form of oppression of those peasants on the pronya led to the confiscation of the land. Any estate that came to a bishop or other ecclesiastical dignitary was only in usufruct similarly to a lord. The lands were used and maintained as part of the office of a bishop or pronyar nobility, rather than residing in individual ownership.

The law code of Tsar Dusan made it obligatory that the monies from monasteries be used for the feeding of the monks, poor relief and the erection of hospitals. Article 28 of the code says that the abbot who does not feed and educate the poor will be ejected from his position. Dusan himself decreed that all monasteries need have a hospital with a minimum of 12 beds. Treatment was free. Because of these duties, monastic lands were free from taxation and the peasants on the land were free from military service.

While commoners were not permitted in the Grand Sabor, they were well represented in the Selo, as well as their own zupanate sabor. However, the property rights of the commoners were protected by law. Whether in the selo or the grad, commoners had equal rights and duties, though proportional to their environment. Commoners could also hold bashtina, though his was often in a dependent state with the noble. It was not unknown for the grand prince himself to enter into contracts with commoners as an equal.

iii.

Slobodnyi Lyudi (independent men) was a designation that referred to all commoners who held independent bashtina. Their responsibility was identical to that of the nobles. The parish priest enjoyed the same rights as anyone else, and was given three fields to plow for his sustenance (two fields to cultivate, one to leave fallow). If the priest was already an owner, he did not receive his three pieces of land. If his son did not follow him into the priesthood, he could not inherit the three fields. Often a married priest was assigned to a monastery to attend to the affairs as an economos, or a specifically designated man who dealt with the economic aspects of the monastery. Ordinary monks of whatever rank did not deal with the economic duties of monastic landholding. It mattered not how much land a monastery owned, monks were taken up with manual labor, translating or liturgical services. Widows with children were exempt from all dues and work.

The “merops” formed much of the rural population, and were tenant farmers. The amount of corvee he was to perform was derived from a free contract and fixed by law. Their lord had no jurisdictional rights over them. They went before the crown courts only for redress of grievances, with a jury made up only of other merops. These were the skilled laborers. Their property rights were fixed by law, as stated in the Dusan code numbers 22 and 201. The code of Dusan also punishes those who entice labor off one bashtina to another (article 93). This article suggests that there was competition for good labor, proving even more freedom for peasants of whatever type. Article 121 says that a landlord cannot restrict a tenant’s movements, and can go into the marketplace when he wishes. The fine against restricting their movements was 10 horses. The commoners could alienate their land however they wished, but only on the stipulation that there be one workman to till the soil in residence. The issues were not keeping the peasant tied to the soil as in Russia, but that the land be toiled by someone to support his region.

Skilled labor with no land were given sufficient land by the local authorities. This was a part of the competition for workmen, as this was a measure to keep them in the area. If a poor peasant cleared a forest, he was given that land by default.

Article 68 of Dusan’s code says that nothing shall be exacted from the laborer that is not an aspect of law or is devised therefrom, or by contract. Any extreme exaction gave the tenant the right to take the lord to the imperial courts (cf. article 139). Equality before the law existed in Serbia in the 12th century and likely before. Further, the code of Dusan and earlier says that the crown takes full responsibility for seeing that the lord exacts no revenge against the tenant who takes him to court.

Tenants of church lands owed no work or money dues of any sort except if the tsar himself was passing though. But even military duty was exempt (except in times of severe emergency, see article 23). Now, the monasteries themselves, as already seen, were not exempt from work dues to the crown. But the extent to which these applied to the tenants were spelled out in the original charter to the monastery or church in the first place. Many of these were repealed or lost during the Turkish invasion. Each tenant, on average, was given nine mats (each mat was worth about 2/3 of an acre) to work. The harvest was delivered to the monks and the farmers received sufficient land to live, and the monastery maintained a relief store for the community, as well s for the poor and widowed. Single men worked as a community, and were given less work than if a member of a zadruga. There was about 2 days a week work for the monastery, but one male from each house needed to put in these labors, which, for large families, meant very little work during the course of the fall or spring. Smaller monasteries required a money payment without work. Renting land from a monastery usually meant that about a tenth of the produce was turned over to the monks for their own sustenance as well as for poor relief and social insurance.

iv.

Now, in working for crown lands or for private owners as tenant farmers, corvee was usually set as one man per household 2 days a week in the fall and spring. Two days a year the entire community had to work for the lord or the crown. The law stipulated that everything sowed was to be reaped, in other words, that the workmen needed to be given sufficient time to harvest their own crops before labor for the lord was permitted. For crown lands, military service was required of all nobles and commoners. Quartering of imperial troops was a part of this. However, the law says that only once a season can this be done. The zemlyani (another word for tillers of the earth, or zemlya) also provided the state what it needed in terms of fortifications castles or roads. They also guarded the public roads.

There was another group in Serbian society, the Vlachs, or cattle raisers, mnost of whom were not of Serbian extraction, many were what we call Romanians. This term applied to all, including Serbs, that raised cattle rather than worked the land. The state sought to limit the wanderings of the grazers, and limited them to a specific winter and summer area. The permanent settlements were called the katoun, and they resembled any other village. They were not very popular people, for their wanderings caused damage to property. They had no sense of private property due to their nomadic habits. Serbs were forbidden by custom to marry herders. The law also stipulated that they could not traverse the same path between their settlements two years in an row, and if they did, they were subject to heavy fines and were prosecuted for trespassing.

If vlachs were attached to a specific local body, they owed service dues like anyone else. They often were paid in money. If they took over a domain’s cattle and raised them, they would be exempt from all other dues. They were also drafted as transport workers, as their wanderings made them quite adept at transportation and navigation.

All persons, except the otroks, were permitted the right of directly petitioning the monarch. The otroks were the lowest on the Serbian scale, though there were very few of them. They were semi-serfs. He did have private property rights and their claims were litigated in the imperial courts. The otroks themselves, however, was considerd bashtina (see article 44 of Dusan’s code). Otroks were often chronic debtors or other social problems, and ended up descending from another rank into that of an otrok. Certain documents from Ragusa (Dubrovnik) suggest this. Once their debt was paid, though, they reverted to a free Serbian citizen. “Debt” and “to transgress” are nearly identical in Serbian customary law, and therefore, it is very difficult to determine whether otroks were debtors or petty criminals. Personal service, then, was a way to pay off a “debt,” whether literal of figurative. The lord did have judicial authority over the otrok, but capital crimes were decide only by crown courts.

POWs of the Serbs were held for ransom –if this was not forthcoming, then they lived as free Serbs if they wished. Slavery and serfdom were completely unknown to Serbia. It should not be surprising that the bankers and merchants o f Venice and Ragusa (as they were often closely allied) did buy and sell people of all backgrounds. This flagrant violation of Serbian ways was one of the many reasons Serbs and Ragusans disagreed over the course of the middle ages. There are documents, though, from Ragusan merchants claiming to Serbian notables that they were taking steps to stop the slave trade. Whether or not such statements were little more than palliatives to calm the Serbs is open to investigation..

v.

In early medieval Serbia, justice was administered by the locality, from an elected jury along with the elected zupan in person. King St. Milutin organized a body of judges, educated in legal theory, that made up the backbone of the Imperial court system. The court system was organized into districts, and these men headed up one of them each.

According to article 179 of Dusan’s code, judges should travel the circuit to look after the affairs of the poor and to stop oppression. Judges administering circuits in many ways were the eyes and ears of the grand zupan. Judges were forbidden to take any property that was not officially registered as a gift (see article 180).

The courts were divided into royal and imperial courts, with judges appointed by the monarch; courts of the fortified towns, village courts presided over by a judge locally elected, commercial courts dealing with state revenues and presided over by the royal dept of the treasury and church courts. All courts used the jury system.

According to the Dusanite code, the king could himself be brought before the imperial courts by a commoner. Article 171 states: “In case my Imperial Majesty should give to any person a note in anger or friendship or in grace, which is contrary to the law and not according to justice, the judge will pay no heed to my writings and shall judge regularly according to the law and see to it that his judgement is made manifest.” This article, by itself, proves that medieval Serbia was a national ruled by law, not by men. Articles 112 and 113 provide the right to asylum in the patriarch’s or the kings court’s for one unjustly punished, and no one could be imprisoned without a written claim by a judge.

The procedure of the court system was based on the confrontation between accuser and accused. Writs were submitted beforehand to the judge, and the rules of evidence were normally witnesses or written documents. Trial by ordeal was very rare, and had no part in the regular workings of the court system. Trials were verbal affairs, but sentences were written. Hung juries were sent to the capital for decision by the sovereign himself. The accuser needed to be present, or the accused was considered innocent (article 89 of Dusan’s code). The local sheriff (pristav) could, on occasion, work as a free defense attorney. Further, the law of service was strict (article 104), and one needed to be served an injunction in person. Sheriffs were strictly forbidden to act in any manner except as agents of the courts, juries and their judgements. Their tongues were cut out for transgressing the decisions of juries.

Serbs were always judged by juries. Commoners could only have a jury made up of commoners, and nobles, by nobles, merchants by merchants, etc. Peerage was taken seriously. Even otroks were judged by other otroks. If there was a case of mixed class (e.g. a free peasant suing a noble), then the jury was mixed in proportion. Relatives to any in a case could not serve as jurymen. No one was to have friends on the jury. Small claims were adjudicated by the “dobri lyudi” who were a type of notary public.

Church courts dealt with matters among clergy, issues of public morality, marriages and divorces or blasphemy. Clergy sat in judgement. Divorce was granted in rare cases. Men and women who abandoned their homes were forced to go back. Women who left their husband for another man were given lashes, men, public humiliation. Tenants of church lands went to the regular public courts over non-moral matters.

Confiscation of property was a rare punishment, and was reserved for murder, treason or forgery. Manslaughter, bodily injury, extortion of taxes were met with money fines and the lash. A friend on the jury to the defendant, when discovered, was fined 1000 perpers. The same thing went for judges. Bond was practiced and thus, a version of habeas corpus was recognized. The Dusanite law code stipulated that the two worst crimes committed against the public order were the abuse of power and robbery (articles 142 and 57). Keep in mind that a major land route from western Europe to the Orient lay through Serbia, and it is thus reasonable to consider that the worry about robbery had to do with this substantial form of public revenue. This is also the reason why Serbia has always hd an importance completely disproportionate to its size and was considered a prize of great worth. Further, this trade route also explains to a great extent why foreigners in Serbia were treated as Serbian citizens.

It should be noted that restitution was the primary consideration for crimes. Judicial punishments beyond that was a secondary consideration. The monarch, for example, if foreign merchants were robbed by Serbs, was completely responsible for restitution. As a result, robbery was almost completely wiped out in Serbia before the Turk invasion. In the later middle ages, this responsibility was given over to local aristocrats.

vi.

Military service was required of all free Serbs, except of those working church lands, given the special nature of their obligations. The first sort of military levy, and the most common, was when the nobles came to the army with their retainers, and they all came at their own cost. This was a very severe responsibility far from compensated for by their paltry privileges. The second kind of levy was the Zamanitcyhkavoyska; all nobles, retainers and commoners, or the whole male population. This was only called in emergencies. Usually, the bashtinkiks with their retainers were the strength of the army. The commoners made up the lighter infantry, and were armed with a lance and a battle axe. Vlachs were used not as fighters, but as transport men. The nobility made up the officer cavalry; the tsar was the supreme commander and usually led his men personally. The ability to declare war was left to the sabor in consultation with the tsar. This was largely because the sabor members were of the upper nobility, and their substantial retainers and skill in war were necessary for any battle to be fought. The sovereign would sometimes maintain an army of mercenaries directly under his control.

Mining towns were often populated with Venetians and others from the west, who lent their skill at metal working so as to provide a thriving export trade. Mines were usually the property of the state (no doubt for currency), but some could be rented at great cost to foreigners. Gold and silver were worked, but other metals were tin, lead and zinc and tin.

Serbs did not deal with merchants very much. Those that did lived on the Adriatic coast and in Ragusa specifically were the only form of bankers the Serbs dealt with, and they were always distrusted.. Serbia’s position as part of the Oriental trade route automatically involved at least a handful of Serbs in the merchant trades. The Serbs did not, as a matter of course, want to be tainted with that sort of life, and so charters and contracts with the Ragusans were a regular part of Serbian political economy. Substantial taxes were paid by the Ragusans into the treasury in exchange for favorable contracts, free trade and the social insurance the monarchs gave them in terms of restitution. It should be kept in mind that the Ragusans were only kept in the service of Serbia through warfare, as Ragusa was a natural ally of Rome and Venice, and thus were usually considered de facto enemies of the Serbs.

Serbian exports were wood, wine, hemp, metals, hides, livestock, resin, pitch, metals, beeswax, silk and grain. Imports were salt, cloths, pearls and precious stones, church vestments, household furniture, and weapons. However, the Serbian balance of trade was usually favorable given the tremendous mining of precious metals. Trade was often conducted through Dubrovnik, Salonika and Constantinople. Oriental trade also was important, and usually went through the Salonica ports.

Early Serbia used Byzantine or Venetian coin. Serbian gold and silver pieces were minted under Vladislav from early thirteenth century and was raised to an art under the political and economic genius of King St. Milutin. The wording on the coinage is both in Serbian and Latin, proof of the nature of much Serbian trade. A perper, a unit used in many documents in medieval Serbia, was not a unit of currency, but rather a unit of measure, about a kabal of grain, or 2/3 of a bushel. A “litra” of silver was about 10.5 oz and was another unit of measure for the minting of coins. Inflation was controlled (as is normal in monarchies), and the sifting of the litra went from 12 perpers in 1200 to 22 perpers in 1450, or an annual inflation rate of .04%.

vii.

It should be obvious that medieval Serbia was a society based around material prosperity, family loyalty, national property and a general equality among classes. I normally refer to medieval Serbia as a “national anarchist” form of government, revolving around that local and regional zadruga and selo forms of community self-rule. Outside of military levys in time of war. The Grand Zupanate had little day to day affect on the Serbian population who, like in Russia, were ruled by elected local leaders and judged by a jury of their peers (in the strictest sense).

It should be kept in mind that throughout the development of these institutions, the Latins, through Venice, were continually attempting to subvert them and replace them with a Venetian/Roman banking oligarchy, and, had they succeeded would have reduced the free Serbian peasantry to a condition of serfdom matched by the Papal regime in Poland. Therefore, theology, personal and family freedom and access to property were all bound up together in the national and ethnic community, creating a healthy sense of self-worth and ethnic an regional belonging all but lost in the modern era. Serbian life-spans were very long, due to the easy access to the latest Byzantine (Greek) medicine that was the most advanced for its time (apart maybe from China). The work day was short (far less than eight hours), and Serbian elders would drink slivo under the nearest tree and tell stories of Serb saints and heroes of the past.

Please do not forget that, in the west, Roman “bishops” were themselves landlords and bankers. They maintained their own armed retinues and had their own coats-of arms. They were not primarily religious figures, but feudal magnates whose desire for more and more land was often shrouded in theological mystification. They used the Albanian landlords to try and overthrow grand zupans they did not like, and used Ragusa to drive often naive Serbian merchants into debt. Serbian independence was bought at the price of much blood and eternal struggle. Therefore, the purity of Orthodox teaching against the heresy of the Romans was paramount, for the Serbian identity was intimately tied to the Orthodox faith, and therefore forcible conversion to Latinism automatically meant subjection to the episcopo-banking aristocracy of western Europe, with its major outpost in Venice, aimed like a dagger at the very heart of Serbia (not to mention Byzantium).