Article written by Petrit Latifi on November 18, 2025.

Summary:

The conflict on the Zeta plain in spring 1835, centered on Žabljak, Spuž, and Podgorica, represents a characteristic episode of Montenegrin–Ottoman frontier warfare during the early nineteenth century. It began with the killing of several Kuči shepherds by Podgorica Turks, an event that catalyzed a swift Montenegrin retaliatory expedition. Montenegrin forces from Ceklin, Cuce, and other tribal groups launched a coordinated attack on Žabljak, burning the fortress, seizing Ottoman artillery, and briefly occupying the site before withdrawing. Although the Ottomans re-entered the area almost immediately, the destruction of the fortress had a lasting symbolic impact.

Ottoman commander Hafiz Pasha assembled several hundred soldiers and armed peasants to secure the Zeta plain. His forces retaliated by burning or damaging Montenegrin villages and shelling the surrounding hills. Yet the Ottoman response was constrained by concurrent uprisings and unrest in Albania, which forced Hafiz Pasha to curtail operations and return to Scutari within days. This quick withdrawal allowed Montenegrin leaders to present the campaign as a victory and reinforce internal cohesion, which was crucial for Petar II Petrović Njegoš in consolidating authority early in his rule.

Contemporary reports from Dalmatian consuls, alongside Njegoš’s letters to the Russian vice-consul Gagić, reveal a complex interplay of local violence and international diplomacy. Russia’s overt concern for Montenegro limited Ottoman reprisals, while Njegoš used both public celebration and private directives to maintain tribal unity without provoking direct diplomatic consequences. The event consequently became embedded in Montenegrin political culture and oral tradition, later echoing in literary works and historical narratives.

The 1835 Žabljak campaign, though militarily limited, accelerated broader processes of state consolidation and identity formation. It exposed Ottoman vulnerabilities, sharpened Montenegro’s sense of collective agency, and foreshadowed the larger conflicts that would reshape the region in the latter half of the century.

Part I of III

Introduction

The conflict that unfolded around Žabljak and the Zeta plain in early 1835 constitutes one of the most revealing episodes in the complex border dynamics between the Montenegrin tribes and the Ottoman administration of northern Albania and southern Zeta. Although often overshadowed by larger 19th-century Balkan crises, the events of March and April 1835 left a profound impression on Montenegrin political culture and formed an essential element in the evolving administrative, diplomatic, and military posture of the small principality under the leadership of Petar II Petrović Njegoš. Their study illuminates the mechanisms of frontier violence, the functioning of Ottoman provincial governance, the internal dynamics of Montenegrin tribal politics, and the increasingly indispensable role of Russian diplomacy.

The surviving source base is fragmentary but exceptionally rich in texture. The principal documents include Montenegrin chancellery correspondence, especially messages from Njegoš to the Russian vice-consul Jeremija Gagić in Dubrovnik; Austrian administrative dispatches from Budva, Kotor, and Zadar; Italian-language consular reports that trace troop movements and provide eyewitness accounts of destruction; and local Montenegrin oral traditions later reworked into literary form, particularly in the poems “Osveta kučka” and “Pohara Žabljaka.” The juxtaposition of these materials enables a reconstruction that is both narrative and analytical, respecting the chronological order of events while probing the underlying political rationalities of the key actors.

It is necessary to emphasize that these episodes were not isolated eruptions of irrational tribal rage, as they were sometimes portrayed in contemporary Ottoman or Austrian official language. Rather, they represented the culmination of long-standing tensions exacerbated by perceived betrayals, local power struggles, and the unstable administrative environment of the Ottoman frontier. The Montenegrin tribal world, though guided by its own norms of honor, reciprocity, and retaliation, was simultaneously embedded in an intricate diplomatic web that linked Cetinje to St. Petersburg, Dubrovnik, Trieste, Istanbul, and Scutari. Each local action reverberated through multiple administrative layers.

The present study, arranged in seven major sections and supplemented by a consolidated timeline, seeks to reconstruct these events with as much precision as the sources permit. Part I covers the historical setting, the immediate causes, and the seizure and destruction of Žabljak. Part II will continue with a detailed analysis of the Ottoman counter-offensive, the actions of Hafiz Pasha, the regional disturbances in Albania and the Adriatic littoral, and Montenegrin responses. Part III will conclude with a discussion of Russian diplomatic mediation, the literary reflections of the events, a theoretical analysis of frontier violence, and the final comprehensive 1835 timeline.

I. Background and Conditions Leading to the 1835 Crisis

The early decades of the 19th century witnessed profound shifts in the relationship between Montenegro and the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans retained nominal sovereignty over the Montenegrin highlands, but in practice exercised little direct control. Their authority was concentrated in fortified towns of the Zeta plain such as Podgorica, Spuž, and Žabljak, all of which served as nodes of tax collection, grain procurement, and military supervision. Montenegrins viewed these settlements with suspicion, seeing them as instruments of a foreign power that had, in their telling, repeatedly violated agreements, seized hostages, or attempted forced submission.

The region oscillated between negotiated coexistence and episodic violence. The Montenegrin tribal system, especially the tribes of Kuči, Piperi, and Bjelopavlići, occupied land directly adjacent to the Ottoman-controlled lowlands. These tribes grazed their herds, visited markets, and intermarried within a system of unofficial but well-established agreements that facilitated regular contact. Yet these same tribes maintained the right of armed retaliation for any perceived injustice, and such retaliation often provoked Ottoman punitive expeditions. The balance was fragile.

By the early 1830s, Ottoman authority in northern Albania was itself in flux due to the weakening of central control and the frequent replacement of provincial governors. Hafiz Pasha, the vali of Scutari, sought to impose stronger oversight over local districts, which raised tensions with both Muslim and Christian notables. His efforts at military centralization included strengthening the garrisons at Podgorica and Spuž, as well as installing loyal militia leaders. These measures were perceived among local Montenegrin populations as preparation for aggression.

On the Montenegrin side, the recent consolidation of authority under Njegoš was still incomplete. After the assassination of his uncle, Petar I, the young prince-bishop faced internal rivals, complicating his efforts to claim undisputed leadership. Acts of violence along the frontier posed a direct challenge to his political credibility, since he was expected by foreign powers to restrain tribal aggression but by the tribes themselves to uphold their honor by endorsing retaliation. The events of 1835 thrust him into the center of this difficult balancing act.

II. The Killing of the Kuči Shepherds and the Breakdown of the Peace

The immediate catalyst for the 1835 conflict was the killing of a group of shepherds from the tribe of Kuči by armed men from Podgorica. Sources differ slightly in the number of victims, but at least seventeen—and perhaps twenty—shepherds were murdered, and their livestock seized. The shepherds had been grazing on lands near Podgorica under the terms of a recently negotiated local agreement that permitted cross-border grazing and commerce.

Njegoš described the event with sharp condemnation in a letter to Gagić dated 12/24 March 1835, writing that the Podgorica Turks “through their faith, slaughtered twenty Kuči shepherds and took all their booty.”(1) This language, combining moral outrage with a clear attribution of responsibility, suggested that Montenegrins interpreted the act as a premeditated betrayal. The shepherds were unarmed civilians performing routine work under a mutually recognized arrangement; their murder violated established norms, and the seizure of their livestock added an economic dimension to the crime.

Ottoman reports are sparse, but some Italian-language dispatches hint that the Podgorica authorities viewed the shepherds as trespassers, perhaps involved in intelligence gathering or previous raids. These allegations may have been fabricated after the fact to provide justification. No surviving Ottoman document directly claims responsibility for ordering or sanctioning the killings; they were likely carried out by a local Muslim armed group acting independently or semi-independently, as often happened during periods of administrative instability. Yet for Montenegrins, the distinction was irrelevant: the perpetrators were subjects of Podgorica and therefore part of the Ottoman system.

News of the killings spread rapidly among the tribes. Outrage combined with a longstanding sense of insecurity. The Kuči tribe, already predisposed to conflict with Podgorica, demanded immediate retaliation. Njegoš, aware of the potential consequences, wrote to Gagić that he lacked the power to restrain the tribes if they chose to avenge their dead. This assertion was not rhetorical; it reflected both political realism and a calculated attempt to signal to Russia that the Ottoman authorities, not Montenegro, should bear responsibility for the coming escalation.

Gagić forwarded these reports to St. Petersburg with alarming urgency. In his dispatches, he identified Mezmed-spahija Lekić of Podgorica as the individual most responsible for provoking tensions. Lekić was widely regarded among Montenegrins as emblematic of Ottoman abuse, and Russian diplomats concluded that a firm demand for his removal would be justified. These initial diplomatic maneuvers formed the prelude to the violence that followed.

III. The Montenegrin Assault on Žabljak

The retaliatory action came swiftly. In the night between 11 and 12 March (Old Style), a group of Montenegrin fighters launched a surprise attack on the Ottoman fortress of Žabljak. The fortress, constructed on a rocky peninsula and surrounded by the waters of Lake Shkodër, commanded the lowland approaches to the Zeta region. Its symbolic and strategic importance made it a natural target for retaliation.

According to Njegoš’s later statement to Gagić, the attack occurred without his prior authorization. Whether this is strictly true remains a matter of debate. Some Montenegrin oral traditions suggest Njegoš may have offered tacit encouragement or at least refrained from issuing prohibitions. However, his diplomatic correspondence consistently emphasizes non-involvement, probably to maintain political deniability vis-à-vis Russia and Austria.

The initial strike force consisted of approximately fifty fighters, likely from the nearby tribes that had suffered most directly from Podgorica’s aggression. They infiltrated the fortress quietly, taking advantage of minimal nighttime security. Once inside, they killed the commander and several Ottoman guards. Reinforcements from Ceklin and the Rijeka nahija soon joined them, allowing the attackers to consolidate control of the stronghold.

The fortress and adjacent settlement were thoroughly looted. Contemporary Italian-language reports from Budva describe scenes of total destruction: “The fort and the village of Zabliach are entirely burned,” one dispatch notes, “and two hundred houses reduced to ashes.”(2) Montenegrins set fire to the grain stores, workshops, and wooden dwellings. They captured two Ottoman cannons but, unable to transport them immediately, sank them in the surrounding waters to prevent Ottoman recovery. Livestock, weapons, and valuables were seized as compensation for the murdered shepherds.

One report from Kotor estimates that six hundred Montenegrins from Rijeka, Lješanska, and Katunska nahija participated in the seizure and destruction. This number may be exaggerated, but it suggests that the attack became a larger collective operation once the initial strike force secured the fortress. The burning of Žabljak sent a powerful political message: the Montenegrins were not only avenging a tribal grievance but demonstrating their capacity to reach into the Ottoman lowlands and destroy one of its fortified centers.

Ottoman survivors fled to Podgorica or scattered into the countryside. Local Muslim inhabitants who attempted to return found their homes destroyed. In the days following the attack, Montenegrins attempted to occupy some of the remaining intact houses, but on 27 March an Ottoman patrol engaged them, resulting in ten Montenegrin deaths. This skirmish foreshadowed the larger Ottoman counter-offensive that was soon to arrive.

Petitions to the Porte — The Albanians of Žabljak Appeal Against the Burning of Their Homes

The local Albanian inhabitants of Žabljak, having returned briefly to the ruins of their dwellings only to find them consumed by fire, organized a delegational appeal to the Ottoman central administration. Their action followed a well-established Ottoman practice of submitting arzuhâls (petitions) to the Porte when provincial redress appeared insufficient or when local officials were perceived as compromised.

The petitioners from Žabljak, who acted alongside residents from Spus and Podgorica, framed their complaints in three principal demands: recognition of the material losses caused by the Montenegrin attack (burnt houses, destroyed stores, seized livestock and goods); immediate measures to secure military protection in the form of strengthened garrisons or militia presence at Žabljak, Spuz, and Podgorica; and financial compensation either via local Ottoman authorities or directly from imperial funds if the Porte found the local commanders negligent.

Their petition carried both humanitarian and political aims. Humanitarian in that it sought recompense and immediate relief for displaced families; political in that it functioned as a public assertion of loyalty to the imperial center. By bringing their plight before Constantinople, the petitioners hoped to distinguish themselves from insurgent elements in the hinterland and to enlist the Porte’s formal recognition of their suffering as Ottoman subjects. The petitions thus transformed a local catastrophe into a matter of imperial administrative concern, compelling central officials to register the events of the Zeta plain in metropolitan correspondence and, at least rhetorically, to consider remedial actions. Contemporary Dalmatian dispatches record these intentions and report that envoys from Žabljak, Spus, and Podgorica indeed intended to press the Porte for both redress and protection.³

Place this section before the diplomatic closing line that follows in the original dispatch (“I have the honor of sharing this with you, with respect, and I express to you with my deepest esteem and veneration. Budva, April 10, 1835. …”).

Footnotes for insertion (numbered to follow the article’s existing sequence):

3. Ernesto Burović to Gabriel Ivačić, Budva, 7 April 1835 (reporting that inhabitants returned to burned dwellings and that delegations were planning to travel to Constantinople).
4. Gio. Crissomali to Gabriele Ivacich, Budua, 5 April 1835; Zadar, Historical Archive 179 (b. XI.a c. X/2 ~ 1 ?35).
5. Dispatch from Budva, 10 April 1835 (Gio. Crissomali), reporting that “some inhabitants of Zabliach, Podgorica, and Spus are headed to Constantinople to file a strong complaint…”.

IV. The Montenegrin Position After the Destruction of Žabljak

From a strategic perspective, the destruction of Žabljak was both a success and a liability for Montenegro. It weakened Ottoman control over the Zeta plain temporarily, but it also created political exposure. The Austrians, who monitored frontier developments closely, expressed alarm. Reports from Budva and Kotor noted that Montenegrins were operating within sight of Ottoman garrisons and that retaliation was inevitable. Njegoš’s correspondence reflects this awareness; he celebrated the military achievement internally but externalized the responsibility by claiming it was a spontaneous tribal action beyond his control.

Meanwhile, local civilian populations in the Zeta plain were thrown into chaos. Inhabitants of Vranjina evacuated their homes and sought refuge in Montenegrin-controlled territory. Villagers from Plocice reported constant movements of armed groups, and there were rumors of Ottoman reinforcements arriving from Scutari. The atmosphere was one of pervasive instability.

Njegoš attempted to consolidate tribal unity in anticipation of Ottoman retaliation. He summoned chiefs from Rijeka and other nahijas, distributing monetary rewards and symbolic gifts. These gestures reinforced loyalty and framed the attack on Žabljak as a collective Montenegrin achievement rather than a rogue tribal raid.

But even as Montenegrin morale surged, the Ottoman response was already underway.

Footnotes for Part I:

1. Njegoš to Jeremija Gagić, 12/24 March 1835, Archives of the State Museum in Cetinje.
2. Dispatch from Budva to the Kotor authorities, 31 March 1835, Zadar Historical Archive.

Part II of III

V. The Ottoman Counter-Offensive: The March of Hafiz Pasha

The Ottoman response to the destruction of Žabljak was by no means delayed. Hafiz Pasha, the vali of Scutari, was informed of the attack almost immediately through couriers arriving from Podgorica and through Albanian notables who recognized the gravity of the Montenegrin incursion. Given the symbolic and military importance of Žabljak, Hafiz Pasha faced both political pressure and practical necessity to restore order and punish what the Ottoman administration regarded as open rebellion.

The counter-offensive began with a small vanguard. Around midnight between 29 and 30 March, approximately two hundred Ottoman soldiers approached Žabljak, supported by one cannon and one howitzer. It is significant that they moved at night, indicating an expectation that Montenegrins might still be occupying or attempting to fortify the ruins. Indeed, the earliest Montenegrin defensive actions involved firing captured Ottoman artillery, suggesting they anticipated a possible confrontation. According to Budva reports, Montenegrins managed to repel this initial Ottoman approach by firing from concealed positions and using natural cover on the high ground.

Yet the Montenegrin presence was not permanent. After the first exchange of fire, the defenders withdrew in an orderly fashion, retreating toward tribal villages where they could regroup. They had no intention of defending the ruins of the fortress, whose destruction had already served its symbolic purpose.

Hafiz Pasha, meanwhile, mobilized a far larger force. Between 30 and 31 March, he dispatched an additional four hundred soldiers and six hundred armed peasants (likely Albanian irregulars from the surrounding districts). These forces converged on the Zeta plain, marching through lowland roads and converging on the ruins of Žabljak. By the evening of 30 March, roughly one thousand Ottoman troops had arrived and occupied the site.

Contemporary Italian-language reports attest that the arrival of such a large force created a sense of temporary optimism among local Ottoman subjects. In the report by Ernesto Burović in Budva on 31 March, it is stated that “the Turks and peasants are arriving in great numbers in Zabliach, and the poorest inhabitants are striving to repair the roofs of their homes.”(1) The image of civilians returning immediately to a burned town, scrambling to rebuild shelter amidst fresh military arrivals, illustrates both resilience and desperation. Ottoman forces began clearing ruins, extinguishing smoldering embers, and establishing makeshift defensive positions. The two cannons lost during the Montenegrin attack could not be recovered; this created a sense of humiliation, although commanders attempted to downplay the matter.

VI. Tactical Operations and Local Violence during the Counter-Offensive

The Ottoman campaign was not limited to retaking Žabljak. Hafiz Pasha authorized punitive operations across the surrounding countryside, targeting villages suspected of assisting the Montenegrin raiders. Troops and irregulars burned houses near Žabljak and destroyed properties belonging to Montenegrin families who lived within or near Ottoman-controlled territory. Some livestock was seized both as compensation and as spoils, though the line between official reprisals and opportunistic looting was thin.

A particularly noteworthy incident took place on 30 March, when a group of Ottoman troops attempted to attack Montenegrin shepherds from Ceklin. These shepherds, unlike the Kuči herdsmen killed earlier in the month, were accompanied by armed escorts because they anticipated reprisals. The Montenegrin escort successfully repelled the Ottoman attackers, killing around twenty. This event served to intensify the cycle of retaliatory violence and confirmed Montenegrin expectations that grazing rights were no longer respected by Ottoman authorities.

Reports from Budva and Kotor indicate that the Ottoman army fired cannon shells into Montenegrin-held villages, damaging houses but producing limited strategic impact. Some shells fell into the waters of the surrounding lake; others hit stone buildings. A dispatch from Budva dated 10 April mentions that “nine Turkish cannon balls have struck Cernizza,” likely meaning Cernica village in the Ceklin region, though inhabitants had already taken precautionary measures by evacuating women and children.

Civilian populations across the plain were caught between opposing forces. The residents of Vranjina, terrified by rumors that Hafiz Pasha would bombard their settlement, chose to evacuate entirely. As one report notes, “all the inhabitants of Vranina escaped during the night from fear of the Turkish army.”(2) They sought refuge in Montenegro, carrying whatever they could on small boats across the lake. Their flight suggests both the terror generated by Ottoman artillery and the extent to which even nominal Ottoman subjects feared their own armies.

VII. The Political Aims of Hafiz Pasha

Understanding the 1835 conflict requires a close examination of Hafiz Pasha’s motivations. His actions were not simply military reprisals but part of a broader political strategy. As the Ottoman vali of Scutari, he sought to consolidate central authority across a region that was increasingly difficult to control. Montenegrin raids undermined Ottoman prestige and exposed the vulnerability of frontier fortifications. Furthermore, factional conflict among local Muslim notables threatened the coherence of Ottoman rule.

Hafiz Pasha’s itinerary during the counter-offensive included not only Žabljak but the towns of Spuž and Podgorica. These towns were significant administrative centers. Spuž, in particular, functioned as a site of tax administration and grain collection. Podgorica, while more populous, was politically volatile due to tensions between Muslim families and pressure from surrounding tribes. By fortifying these towns, Hafiz Pasha aimed to establish a stable line of defense.

Reports from Zadar on 12 April emphasize that Hafiz Pasha installed new artillery, increased ammunition reserves, and stationed both regular troops and militia in each fortified town. His efforts to secure these settlements speak to an attempt to stabilize the frontier and discourage further Montenegrin incursions. There is no indication that he planned a major incursion into Montenegrin territory; rather, his strategy was defensive and reactive, shaped primarily by the need to demonstrate authority.

One additional political consideration emerges from the sources: Hafiz Pasha had to contend with unrest in Albania itself. Several Italian-language reports describe an uprising in Ulcinj and Bar, and more importantly, a larger rebellion unfolding across central Albania, including Kavaja, Durrës, Tirana, and Elbasan. In one report from 7 April, Gio. Crissomali warns that “the Albanians have taken the Old City and now march toward the important centers, aided by a considerable local population.”(3)

Given this turmoil, Hafiz Pasha’s decision to withdraw from Žabljak and return to Scutari by 2 April becomes not only understandable but strategically necessary. The frontier conflict with Montenegro was not his only concern; he also needed to contain rebellions among his own subjects. Once he restored a basic defensive posture, he refocused his attention on Albania.

VIII. Montenegrin Reorganization and Celebration

While Hafiz Pasha sought to stabilize Ottoman positions, Montenegrins interpreted their rapid and destructive raid on Žabljak as a significant victory. When the leaders of the Rijeka nahija returned to Cetinje on 3 April, Njegoš welcomed them with cannon fire. Such ceremonial gestures served multiple purposes: affirming his personal authority, celebrating tribal valour, and reinforcing unity at a time when external threats were multiplying.

Njegoš distributed sequins and artwork—gifts supplied through Russian channels. These gifts were politically symbolic. By rewarding the fighters with items associated with Russian prestige, Njegoš reinforced the narrative that Montenegro’s struggle against the Ottoman Empire was implicitly supported by the Russian Empire, even when direct military aid was not forthcoming.

The Montenegrins also managed to recover the cannons they had sunk in the waters around Žabljak during the raid. This act required coordinated effort and demonstrated both technical skill and determination. The cannons were brought to Cetinje and placed under Njegoš’s guardianship. The symbolic significance of taking Ottoman artillery from a destroyed fortress cannot be overstated; it represented the physical appropriation of Ottoman military power, transformed into a trophy of Montenegrin resistance.

Between 7 and 12 April, Austrian officials observed continuous gatherings of Montenegrin leaders in Cetinje. These meetings brought together chiefs of Kuči, Piperi, and Bjelopavlići. During a major conference on 13 April, Njegoš delivered counsel that reveals his complex diplomatic strategy. He urged the tribal leaders to maintain a degree of pressure on the Ottoman frontier but simultaneously warned them never to proclaim publicly that he had encouraged hostilities. His caution demonstrates a sophisticated awareness of international politics: Montenegrin honor required active resistance, but diplomatic reality required plausible deniability.

Such dual political messaging was characteristic of Njegoš’s rule. He sought to maintain internal unity while avoiding diplomatic isolation. A too-open endorsement of the Žabljak raid could have triggered Austrian or Russian rebukes; yet failure to applaud tribal bravery would have damaged his credibility within Montenegro.

IX. Russian Mediation and Diplomatic Ramifications

Russian diplomacy played an essential role in shaping the aftermath of the 1835 conflict. Even as Montenegrin fighters celebrated their actions, Njegoš sent detailed reports to Gagić, who forwarded them to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Russian Ambassador Butenjev, stationed in Constantinople, used the information to pressure the Ottoman government.

The Russian argument was straightforward: the Ottoman administration had failed to restrain the Podgorica Turks, whose murder of the Kuči shepherds violated local agreements and provoked retaliatory violence. Russia implied that the Ottomans bore responsibility for the escalation.

In response, Reiz-effendi, the Ottoman Minister of Foreign Affairs, reportedly assured Butenjev that the Porte intended to punish the offending individuals and restore peace along the frontier. Whether this assurance was sincere remains uncertain. There is no record of Ottoman authorities punishing Mezmed-spahija Lekić or others implicated in the killings. But the exchange itself was politically significant. It placed Montenegro’s grievances within the framework of international diplomacy and strengthened Njegoš’s claims to legitimacy as a recognized frontier authority.

Njegoš’s letter to Gagić of August/September 1835 expresses heartfelt gratitude for Russia’s support, saying that the intervention “brings joy to Montenegro,” reflecting his view that diplomatic pressure constituted a form of protection. His correspondence repeatedly emphasizes that Russia, though geographically distant, was morally and politically present in all Montenegrin struggles.

Russian involvement also deterred Hafiz Pasha from launching a broader assault on Montenegro. Ottoman archival references suggest that local commanders did consider a larger campaign but were concerned that such actions might provoke foreign intervention or disrupt delicate negotiations with local Albanian leaders. The knowledge that Russia monitored the frontier created a form of political constraint.

X. Regional Unrest and the Wider Balkan Context

The 1835 conflict must be contextualized within the broader patterns of instability afflicting the western Balkans during the early 19th century. The region experienced simultaneous crises: Montenegrin–Ottoman border tensions, Albanian tribal uprisings, and local tax revolts in coastal towns such as Ulcinj and Bar. These events were not isolated; they were linked by underlying pressures stemming from attempts by the Ottoman Empire to modernize provincial administration and enforce tax laws, often provoking fierce resistance.

In Ulcinj and Bar, new impostos and levies generated local opposition. Reports indicate that small-scale uprisings occurred in both towns, possibly encouraged by religious and clan leaders who feared the erosion of traditional privileges. Such uprisings drew Ottoman attention away from Montenegro and complicated Hafiz Pasha’s strategic calculations.

More consequential was the widespread rebellion across central Albania. Leaders from Kavaja, Tirana, and Elbasan rallied peasants, clergy, and disaffected notables against tax collectors and local governors. Many rebels viewed the Montenegrins not as enemies but as fellow opponents of Ottoman centralization. Though there is no evidence that Montenegrins coordinated actions with Albanian rebels, the simultaneity of these uprisings placed substantial pressure on Ottoman military resources.

The result was a fragmented and reactive Ottoman strategy: punitive expeditions in Montenegro, defensive fortification of Zeta towns, and fire-fighting operations in Albania. The 1835 crisis demonstrated the declining coherence of the Ottoman provincial system and the increasing ability of local communities—both Montenegrin and Albanian—to challenge state authority.

Part III of III

XI. Aftermath: The Retreat of Hafiz Pasha and the Re-Formation of the Frontier

By 2 April 1835, Hafiz Pasha had withdrawn from Žabljak. Though the Ottomans temporarily reoccupied the burned town with a sizeable force, they did not rebuild the fortress nor attempt retaliatory incursions into Montenegro. His departure marked the end of sustained military activity in the Zeta plain for that season.

From the perspective of Ottoman provincial administration, the 1835 frontier conflict appears as a brief but alarming episode within a much broader tapestry of unrest. Hafiz Pasha’s hasty focus on Albanian uprisings underscores that Montenegro was only one of several crises demanding attention. The fact that he did not pursue the Montenegrin forces into the mountains is indicative not of weakness alone, but of calculated restraint: a larger war in Montenegro would have risked external intervention, particularly from Russia, at a time when the empire needed stability.

From the Montenegrin perspective, however, the withdrawal of Hafiz Pasha symbolized victory. Montenegrins had set the terms of the conflict, struck hard and fast, destroyed a fortress, and escaped intact. The Ottoman army’s inability to retaliate effectively strengthened Njegoš’s internal legitimacy and gave Montenegrin tribes confidence in their capacity to defend their autonomy.

This asymmetry of interpretations shaped political narratives in both societies. Ottoman authorities framed the conflict as a regrettable but contained border disturbance. Montenegrins portrayed it as a heroic and strategically brilliant campaign.

XII. Strategic and Symbolic Significance of the Fall of Žabljak

The destruction of Žabljak occupies a distinctive place in Montenegrin historical memory for several reasons.

First, the fortress had been a symbol of Ottoman presence on the Zeta plain since medieval times. Its demolition represented a literal erasure of one of the empire’s oldest frontier structures. Although Žabljak was already weakened and militarily outdated by the 1830s, the Montenegrins’ decision to obliterate it, not occupy it, demonstrates the symbolic dimension of the raid. It was intended to send a message: Montenegrin forces could not only penetrate Ottoman territory, but permanently alter it.

Second, the operation highlighted coordinated tribal action. The Kuči, Vasojevići, and Ceklin fighters acted in concert — no small achievement in a political environment where inter-tribal rivalries remained strong. Njegoš, still early in his rule, used the episode to reinforce the idea that Montenegrin unity was paramount. He presented the raid as a collective triumph, even as he carefully distanced himself in diplomatic correspondence.

Third, the fall of Žabljak redefined the geography of the frontier. Montenegrin fighters gained familiarity with lowland routes around the lake and with Ottoman defensive patterns. These geographical lessons proved useful in later decades, especially during the uprisings of the 1850s and the major campaigns of 1876–78. In a sense, the 1835 raid was a rehearsal for larger conflicts yet to come.

Lastly, the fall of Žabljak weakened Ottoman morale among local populations. Many Muslim and Albanian inhabitants of the plain saw that Ottoman defensive capability was limited. That realization contributed to growing dissatisfaction with imperial administration, which in turn fed future resistance movements.

XIII. Njegoš’s Leadership in 1835: Between Diplomacy and Warfare

The events of 1835 reveal a multifaceted portrait of Njegoš as both political leader and strategist. His decisions were shaped by several constraints:

1. International pressure
   Montenegro’s survival depended heavily on the attitudes of Russia and Austria. Njegoš had to maintain a delicate balance: encouraging tribal resistance against Ottoman authority while avoiding open diplomatic crises. His instructions to chiefs — attack if necessary, but never claim he ordered it — illustrate his mastery of plausible deniability.
   
2. Internal aspects
   Njegoš needed to strengthen central authority while respecting tribal autonomy. He knew that Montenegrin chiefs acted independently by nature; his role was to channel their impulses rather than attempt to suppress them outright. His public celebration of the Žabljak fighters, combined with his private caution, exemplifies this dual approach.
   
3. Symbolism
   Njegoš understood the power of spectacle — cannon salutes, public rewards, and the display of captured Ottoman artillery. Such symbolic acts reinforced his legitimacy among both elders and youth, turning battlefield success into political capital.
   
4. Statebuilding
   Though often perceived as a poet-warrior, Njegoš was equally a statebuilder. The 1835 conflict gave him the opportunity to reorganize defenses, strengthen ties with border tribes, and improve communication networks across the hills. These reforms facilitated later administrative centralization, leading eventually to the Danilo-era codifications and the modernization projects of Prince Nikola.

In sum, the 1835 conflict illuminates Njegoš not merely as a reactionary leader but as a calculating and forward-thinking figure operating in a challenging geopolitical landscape.

XIV. Comparative Frontier Dynamics: Montenegro and Albania

Montenegro’s conflict with the Ottomans cannot be viewed in isolation from the simultaneous Albanian uprisings. The western Balkans at this time were defined by complex layers of identity, governance, and resistance.

Similarities between Montenegrin and Albanian movements include:

• Resistance to Ottoman taxation and centralization
Both groups saw new tax policies as violations of customary rights.

• Strong local leadership structures
Montenegrin tribes and Albanian bajraks alike retained traditional authority systems that rivalled imperial power.

• Use of mountainous terrain as a strategic asset
The highlands provided natural defenses that frustrated Ottoman armies.

Yet key differences marked their political trajectories:

• External patronage
Montenegro benefited from Russian diplomatic support, whereas Albanian rebels lacked a consistent foreign sponsor.

• Degree of unity
Albanian uprisings, though massive, were fragmented by regional divisions. Montenegrin society, despite internal rivalries, rallied around a single leader in Cetinje.

• Symbolic framework
Montenegrin resistance was infused with a narrative of statehood and Christian identity, while Albanian revolts were more heterogeneous, blending clan autonomy, religion, and anti-centralization sentiment.

The simultaneity of these movements, however, intensified Ottoman difficulties. Hafiz Pasha’s inability to suppress both Montenegro and Albania at once reveals the overstretched nature of provincial governance in this period.

XV. Literary and Cultural Reflections: The Echo of 1835 in Njegoš’s Works

Though Njegoš did not write an epic poem specifically dedicated to the 1835 events, echoes of the conflict appear indirectly in several of his works. The themes of vengeance, frontier justice, and the sanctity of tribal cohesion — all vividly present in Gorski vijenac and Lažni car Šćepan Mali — reflect ideological currents already visible during the Žabljak campaign.

Njegoš’s private correspondence also reveals how he wove historical events into a larger philosophical framework. He frequently described the frontier as a battlefield between chaos and order, tyranny and freedom. For him, the 1835 conflict symbolized not merely a skirmish but a reaffirmation of Montenegrin spiritual independence.

Montenegrin oral tradition likewise preserved stories of the raid on Žabljak. Songs and narratives spoke of the surprise attack, the burning of the fortress, and the furious but ultimately fruitless Ottoman response. Such oral accounts shaped national identity, portraying tribesmen as both protectors and avengers.

XVI. Analytical Conclusion: The 1835 Conflict in Regional Perspective

The confrontations around Žabljak, Spuž, and Podgorica in spring 1835 were more than a local skirmish. They formed part of a larger pattern of Ottoman decline and Balkan transformation during the early 19th century.

Key conclusions:

1. Military outcome
   Montenegro achieved a tactical and symbolic victory. The Ottomans regained the territory but not the fortress, nor the initiative.
2. Political outcome
   Hafiz Pasha avoided escalation because of simultaneous Albanian uprisings and Russian diplomatic pressure. This constrained the empire’s response.
3. Social effects
   Civilian displacement, such as the flight of Vranjina’s inhabitants, reveals the vulnerability of border populations caught between state and tribal forces.
4. Diplomatic impact
   Russia’s mediation established an early precedent for treating Montenegrin grievances as legitimate matters of international diplomacy.
5. Long-term significance
   The destruction of Žabljak became a precursor to later anti-Ottoman campaigns and contributed to the shaping of Montenegrin national consciousness.

XVII. Chronological Timeline of Key Events, February–April 1835

• February–March
Tensions escalate around Podgorica; disputes over shepherding rights intensify.

• Early March
Two Kuči shepherds are killed by Podgorica Turks, setting off a chain reaction.

• 29 March (morning)
Montenegrin forces from Ceklin and Cuce depart for Žabljak.

• 29 March (afternoon–evening)
Montenegrins attack Žabljak, burn the fortress, and kill several guards. They seize two Ottoman cannons.

• Night 29–30 March
An Ottoman vanguard attempts to retake Žabljak but is repelled. Montenegrins withdraw voluntarily soon after.

• 30–31 March
Hafiz Pasha sends 400 soldiers and 600 armed peasants to the Zeta plain. Ottoman forces reoccupy the ruined fortress.

• 30 March
Ottoman attack on Ceklin shepherds is repelled; around twenty Ottoman fighters killed.

• Early April
Ottomans bombard Montenegrin villages; Vranjina is evacuated.

• 2 April
Hafiz Pasha withdraws to Scutari due to unrest in Albania.

• 3 April
Montenegrin leaders return to Cetinje; celebrations under Njegoš.

• 7–14 April
Conferences in Cetinje with the chiefs of Kuči, Piperi, and Bjelopavlići. Njegoš instructs them privately to remain active on the frontier but to avoid implicating him publicly.

• April (after)
Russia pressures the Ottoman Porte diplomatically. Reiz-effendi promises investigation.

• Late spring–summer
Njegoš corresponds with Gagić, thanking Russia for its support.

This timeline demonstrates both the rapid escalation and equally rapid de-escalation of the conflict — hallmarks of Montenegrin–Ottoman frontier warfare.

XVIII. Final Reflection

The 1835 conflict around Žabljak offers a window into the dynamics that shaped the western Balkans in the decades before the great national movements of the late 19th century. It reveals tribal actors capable of coordinated action, Ottoman administrators grappling with multiple crises, and international powers monitoring every frontier disturbance.

Above all, it reflects a world in transition: the fading of medieval fortresses; the rise of modern national identities; and the persistent, often violent negotiation of sovereignty on the Balkan frontier. Montenegro’s raid on Žabljak was small in scale but large in meaning. It foreshadowed the eventual collapse of Ottoman control in the region and the emergence of Montenegro as a recognized, expanding state.

End of part III.

Albanian Heroism on the Frontier: Resistance Against Both Montenegrin Incursions and Ottoman Centralization

The events of 1835 occurred not only within a Montenegrin–Ottoman framework but also within a broader Albanian landscape defined by its own traditions of honor, clan autonomy, and armed resistance. Albanian communities living between Scutari, the Zeta plain, and the Malësia highlands played a distinctive and often decisive role in the frontier dynamics of the period. Their actions cannot be reduced to simple loyalty to the Ottoman Empire or hostility toward Montenegro. Instead, Albanian fighters exercised a form of agency rooted in centuries-old customary law, defending their lands against incursions from both directions.

Contemporary reports consistently note that the auxiliary forces accompanying Hafiz Pasha included substantial numbers of armed Albanian peasants and clansmen. Far from passive subjects, these groups often acted as the first line of defense when Montenegrin raiding parties descended into the lowlands. Their intimate knowledge of the terrain, notably the marshlands around the lake and the narrow approaches to Podgorica, enabled them to mount effective resistance. Montenegrin accounts of the clashes around Ceklin and the routes to Žabljak acknowledge that Albanian irregulars fought with notable courage, particularly in the counterattack launched on the night of 29–30 March.

Yet Albanian heroism was not aligned unambiguously with Ottoman authority. The very same fighters who resisted Montenegrin incursions were simultaneously engaged in widespread uprisings against imperial centralization. The province of Scutari in 1835 was engulfed in insurgent activity; Hafiz Pasha’s hasty redeployment from the Zeta plain demonstrates the severity of these rebellions. Albanian clans such as the Hoti, Gruda, and Kelmendi asserted their own forms of sovereignty, refusing new taxes and resisting reforms that threatened customary autonomy.

Thus, the heroism of Albanian fighters operated on two fronts. On one side, they defended their settlements, pastures, and clan honor against Montenegrin raids. On the other, they confronted the encroachment of Ottoman bureaucracy and the erosion of local governance. This dual resistance illustrates the complex political identity of Albanian society in the early nineteenth century: proud, martial, and unwilling to submit either to the ambitions of neighboring tribes or the administrative experiments of a distant imperial center.

In this sense, Albanian heroism in 1835 should be understood not as an auxiliary footnote but as a central thread in the frontier narrative. Their armed mobilization shaped the pace of Ottoman operations, influenced the Montenegrin retreat, and contributed to the broader destabilization of the region. The courage displayed by Albanian fighters — whether resisting Montenegrin advances or challenging Ottoman reforms — reflects a tradition of autonomy that would continue to define the northern Albanian highlands throughout the century.

Original materials gathered from:

O AUTORSTVU JEDNE EPSKE PJESME. (Po arhivskoj građi iz Historijskog arhiva u Zadru). JEVTO MILOVIĆ Link: https://dizbi.hazu.hr/d17b118n/main/g/69/7mt/g697mtknpvm3.pdf

Article written by Petrit Latifi on November 18, 2025.