Category Archives: Serbia

Yugoslavia: No Stranger to Extremism

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Croatia, Decline of the west, Extremism, Hate, History, Serbia

 

Those who are still with me on this journey will be happy to know we are nearing the end. Only one country left to go and I have been talking too long about Yugoslavia. I am almost done. I have taken so long because I think Yugoslavia and the countries that emerged when it broke up are so important.  And all of the problems, I believe, relate to one very important issue. That is an issue that is get increasingly important in the modern world, including, of course, Canada and the United States. That is the rise in extremism.

 

By now it is obvious that extremism was rampant in Yugoslavia when it splintered in the early 1990s.  As a result, I think Yugoslavia is a country to which more of us in the west should pay attention.  Why is that? Because it can be a lesson to us all. Perhaps, we can learn enough to avoid their painful mistakes. The key lesson is, that it is incredibly dangerous to turn our country over to the extremists in our midst.

 

In Yugoslavia, people of various ethnicities lived together in relative peace for many decades. And peace is like health, if you take it for granted you are not appreciating it properly. It is too easy to forget how vital peace is to the good life. Canadians and Americans both take them for granted, at our peril.

 

In Yugoslavia after their charismatic leader, Tito, died, literally all hell broke loose. The dogs of war were running free and wild after he died. As soon as Tito died, the country became polarized all over again.  People moved to the extremes. The centre was hollowed out. People began to see other people who had different political or religious viewpoints from them, as enemies, rather than opponents. And this happened quite suddenly. From neighbours to enemies in 60 seconds. People could no longer live together with their foes. Some wanted to live separate and apart. Friendship turned to hatred. And the hate curdled and turned to violence.

 

In Canada, I shuddered when I first saw the Truckers’ Convoy that got international coverage carrying signs on their trucks that said, “F**ck Trudeau.”  I saw the same signs in Ottawa, and Steinbach. Trudeau was very popular, until he wasn’t and with amazing speed he  was hated when many Canadians considered him their enemy. It seemed like there was no room in the country for calm reasoning, or a middle ground. The extremist voices were the loudest. Some Albertans wanted to separate from Canada. Some still do. If these voices win the day, what makes us think that the violence that happened in Yugoslavia won’t happen here too. Albertans think they can no longer live with people in Quebec. Many in Quebec have felt that way for decades. What went wrong? Why do so many of us turn towards the loudest voices? Why are so many of us so quiet? Why do so many of us hate the other side? Even our leaders seem to turn to the extremes. Our Member of Parliament in Steinbach offered coffee and treats for the Truckers’ Convoy when it passed nearby. He found time for them, but never found time for the Pride Parade. He clearly admired the extremists. The LGBTQ* community not so much. This was during the time of Covid-19 when we were all on edge. Many hated Covid restrictions. Many of the truckers thought that freedom meant they could do whatever they wanted. They wanted a country without rules or regulations.

 

We in Canada, and even more in the US, are deeply polarized. Yugoslavia can show us what can happen in such circumstances. It is not pretty.

 

Eric Hobsbawn, another brilliant British historian, wrote about extremists in his series of history books on Europe. He pointed out how

 

“in the period from 1880 to 1914 nationalism took a dramatic leap forward, and its ideological and political content was transformed.  It’s very vocabulary indicates the significance of these years. For the word ‘nationalism’ itself first appeared at the end of the nineteenth century to describe groups of right-wing ideologists in France and Italy, keen to brandish the national flag against foreigners, liberals, and socialists, and in favor of aggressive expansions of their own state which was to become so characteristic of such movements. This was also the period when the song ‘Deutschland Über Alles’ (“Germany above all others) replaced rival compositions to become the actual national anthem of Germany. [Sort of like America First] Though it originally described only a right-wing version of the phenomenon, the word ‘nationalism’ proved to be more convenient than the clumsy ‘principle of nationality’ which had been part of the vocabulary of European politics since about 1830. And so it came to be used for all movements to which the ‘national cause’ was paramount in politics: that is to say for all demanding the right to self-determination, i.e. in the last analysis to form an independent state, for some nationally defined group.”

 

Love of country can be a beautiful thing. Who after all does not love her country? But when it turns to hating the other country, the rival,  it can turn powerfully ugly. This is what all nationalists must guard against, whether they are Adolf Hitler or Donald Trump.  As Hobsbawn wrote,

 

“The basis of ‘nationalism’ of all kinds was the same: the readiness of people to identify themselves as emotionally with ‘their’ nation and to be politically mobilized as Czechs, Germans, Italians, or whatever, a readiness which could be politically exploited. The democratization of politics, and especially elections, provided ample opportunities for mobilizing them. When states did so they called it ‘patriotism’, and the essence of the original ‘right-wing’ nationalism, which emerged in already established nation-states, was to claim a monopoly of patriotism for the extreme political right, and thereby brand everyone else as some sort of traitor. This was a new phenomenon, for during most of the nineteenth century nationalism had been rather identified with liberal and radical movements and with traditions of the French Revolution.”

And extremism and nationalism go together like rum and coke, but they don’t taste as sweet.

Throughout the Balkans, after World War II this became a big problem. Whether in Romania, Bulgaria, Bulgaria, Serbia, or Croatia, this became a big problem. It is becoming a big problem in the United States today.  Canada seems to be following its big brother into troubled waters. Hitler exploited it. Now Trump is exploiting it. Poilievre would like to exploit it. That’s how the world turns.  But we must be careful.  Look at Yugoslavia to see what could easily happen.

 

Nationalism and Pluralism

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Croatia, Extremism, Hate, Moral Humility, Pluralism, Polarization, Serbia

 

I think we all know what nationalism is. It has been with us much longer than pluralism. Unfortunately, nationalism is also much more common than pluralism.

 

Nationalism is usually considered an ideology which emphasizes loyalty to a particular nation. It can be a force for good. Often it is a force for bad. It often promotes devotion to one’s own country above all.  The lates strong iteration of it, is the MAGA movement in the US. Make America great again. Or for those who already think it is a great, make it greater.  America First would be a more important principle for American nationalists. When it leads to feelings of superiority it has usually gone too far. A strong love of one’s own country is a natural feeling and unobjectionable.  But feelings of superiority are often unjustified and not very productive.

 

Pluralism is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a society, where different groups, interests, and beliefs coexist and interact peacefully. It sees strength in diversity which all can benefit from. It not only tolerates diverse views, and even peoples, it celebrates in diversity. Respect of other cultures is essential to the philosophy of pluralism.  Feelings of superiority are an anathema. Nationalism can be a fierce opponent of pluralism. In such a case, in my view, nationalism has gone too far. Pluralism is incompatible with extremism. You can one but not both. Pluralism is born out humility.

 

The struggle between nationalism and pluralism is often fraught. For example, recent examples close to home, are the relationship between Quebec and its separatists, who want to form the independent, or sovereign nation, as they like to call it, of Quebec. In Canada, Alberta is the latest example of where feelings are tending towards separation. How far those feelings will lead that province are not known.

 

In Yugoslavia feelings of pluralism were swamped by nationalism, except in those states where a yearning for separation by smaller groups  prevailed. After their leader Tito died, many Croats wanted to have Croatia secede from Yugoslavia. At the same time, Serbians within Croatia did not want to secede because they felt they would become a minority in the new country, when they had been a majority in power in Yugoslavia. As well, some Slovenians wanted to secede from Yugoslavia, and that was opposed by the Croats within as well as Serbians.

 

The struggle for separate national states often leads to serious political problems. It can, and has, frequently led to serious conflict. Around the world people have come to favor nationalism at the expense of pluralism. That is usually a serious mistake. In the former Yugoslavia after the death of Tito, clearly nationalism had the floor. Pluralism seemed dead. Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, all wanted to be sovereign states even if violence was the only way to achieve it.

 

There was no credible force for pluralism.  I often quote William Butler Yeats who described this phenomena well: The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.” Serbia claimed to be the leader for unity of the states, but all the others lacked confidence that its claims were not based solely on its interest in dominating the other states. No one argued for all for one and one for all that is the precondition pluralism requires.

Pluralism was dead; war of all against all commenced. And the people suffered.

Why is Yugoslavia’s History so Important?

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Croatia, Decline of the west, Hate, Serbia, The Sleep of Reason

 

This is a very unclear photograph I took  of a photograph through a dirty window which  I saw in Vukovar. It shows what Vukovar looked like after its war that lasted less than 4 months. Perhaps it is best that we can’t see it clearly?  What would Canada look like after a Civil War? Or the United States? Do you think that is impossible? History suggests otherwise.

A friend of mine told me recently, he found history boring. He did not want to learn anything about European countries fighting each other in “ancient” wars. I was surprised, but I suspect that is a common reaction. I did not challenge his point of view.  After all, we are all different. I suspect that most of my readers are bored by my comments about history. I hope not, but as I have said at the outset of this blog, I am writing for myself, because I enjoy it and because I write to organize my thoughts and as a result, I learn more. I hope some others enjoy what I write, but I write for myself.

 

Well, I think Yugoslavian history is very important. Even though that country no longer exists. When Yugoslavia broke up the extremists took over. That is the worst thing that can happen. Extremism in Yugoslavia led directly to savagery and barbarism. That is where extremism often leads.

 

As a  recovering lawyer, I know one thing is very important. That is that divorce is never simple. Who gets the kids? Who gets the new computer? How much should one of the couple pay the other for support? Does it matter if one is at fault? Does it matter if one earned much more money than the other during the marriage?

 

And rarely, have the couple planned it out carefully before the divorce. After all they were in love forever.

 

We must multiply the difficulties in the case of a country breaking up.  That is even much more complicated. First, there are no clear rules. That means it is a minefield. It can quickly turn into a melee. Secondly, there are a lot more than 2 people and kids involved. Millions have their millions of opinions. So you get a great variety of opinions on both sides (or really, all sides) on every issue. Some of the questions are still the same. Who gets the good stuff? Like oil. Or nuclear reactors? Or the army? Who gets the debt?  How are the new boundaries to be determined? What about the people left behind in the “wrong country.”  How do we resolve these issues when there is no court to determine it.

 

We also have to remember that the loudest voices are often not most thoughtful voices? Extremists always seem to move to the podium in each country from where they speak the loudest. Level heads rarely count for much. The quiet ones seem out of the picture. The hot heads are screaming and we know where they stand.

 

Canada has a lot in common with Yugoslavia. And that’s the problem. Let’s consider a few issues. Consider Quebec. If it separates what happens to the national debt of Quebec or Canada? What if the Cree or Innu from northern Quebec want to stay in Canada? What if other first nations want to stay in Quebec? What are the new boundaries going to be? Some are pretty arbitrary. What if Labrador wants to be part of Quebec, rather than Newfoundland. What if St. Boniface wants to be part of Quebec?  What about those that don’t want to follow their leaders? Where do the Maritimes go if they are no longer connected to the rest of Canada.

 

Consider Alberta? Who gets the oil wells? What if indigenous people don’t want to stay in Alberta? What about the massive subsides that have been poured into the oil and gas industry over the decades? What if Alberta is landlocked? Is it too bad so sad for Canada? What about guarantees of religious freedom? What if LGBTQ don’t want to be part of Alberta? What if some people, from Saskatchewan want to be part of the new country of Alberta?  What if others, let’s say farmers, don’t want to join? What if Manitoba says, well then we will join the US as their 51st state (assuming the US would be stupid enough to agree to this)?

 

What if some first nations want to stay with Alberta and others want to stay with Canada? What if some want to join the US? What happens to the treaties between Canada and First Nations?

 

We have to remember what Ignatieff said:  “One essential problem with the language of self-determination and nationhood is its contagious. Quebec has discovered a people who also call themselves a nation.” The Cree in that province have been fighting back.

 

Separation will be incredibly complicated. And tempers will be running wild. Remember, hot heads will rise to the top. Cooler heads will likely not prevail. On both sides. Things can get out of hand quickly. Witness what happened in Yugoslavia. Neighbours there who had got along well for many years, all of sudden took up arms against each other?

What can we learn from Yugoslavia?  One thing, is that such questions are extremely divisive, and partisans can quickly appear who want to fight it out and will insist on belligerence from their leaders, not wisdom. History is important, and it must warn us and we must learn to be careful. Another lesson is that we must not turn our country over to the extremists. Finally, we learn from history that violence and anger don’t solve any problems. They just make things worse and they are unlikely to be in short supply.

We must learn humility. Hubris will be deadly.

And finally, such issues won’t be easier to resolve in this age of technological amplification of divisions and the rapid spread of disinformation, particularly disinformation that inflames matters. Things will be exponentially worse.

And if this happens too in the USA, which is flooded with firearms and other weapons and a history of violence that seems to be baked into their DNA, things are bound to be much worse than in Canada. As if all of that is not bad enough, the recent history of Americans choosing explosively ignorant leaders will also not be helpful. Times of tension require cool heads not hot heads. And they will be in short supply.

Learning history of places like Yugoslavia could help us to avoid the worst excesses of what happened there when that country broke up. Maybe it could even help us to avoid the break-up by reminding us of how precious our country is and we should not become complacent. It does not take much to slip into extremism. A little knowledge might help to avoid it.

All in all, things could get ugly. Quickly. The photograph above is what it means to look through a glass darkly.  That is also what the sleep of reason brings.

Krajina: A Village War

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Croatia, Extremism, Serbia

I was sitting on the top of our river boat, in great comfort, probably with a drink in hand, when I saw this on the Danube River and it made me think of Krajina and the battle for Vukovar. I was very lucky.  Others were not.

Michael Ignatieff described a battle he witnessed near Krajina, where he said, “Everywhere in Krajina, the democracy of violence rules.” The Serbs who lived there wanted Vukovar to be part of their country. The Croats resists.

 

The war was everywhere and everyone was involved. This was an inclusive war. DEI not necessary. It was a village war, where people who lived together fought a brutal war against their former neighbours with whom they not so long ago shared drinks. Now they shared blows, bullets, and brutality instead. The front line sometimes ran right through two backyard gardens.  As he said, “This is a war where enemies went to school together, worked in the same haulage company, and now talk on the CB every night laughing, taunting, telling jokes. Then they hang up and try to line each other up in their gunsights.”

 

 

The battle for Vukovar was battle for Yugoslavia. It was battle of an idea.  What would happen after fall of Tito?  Serbians were the largest group. Could they rule the country? Somehow, pluralist options like living together were not available. Why?

 

Yugoslavia was a complex society.  A complex of several states or societies.  What was at issue in Yugoslavia was the fairness of the deal that everyone got within the federation.  Unfair states will not hold. After 1945 Yugoslavia would probably not have been re-constituted were it not for the Communist Party.  They were the only ones who developed significance during war and seized power after the war.

 

Later, the greatest discovery of Milošević was that Tito had died. It opened the door for a top predator like him.  By 1991 a large Serbian army gathered at Vukovar and serious shelling began.  Many people fled Vukovar.  Patriots stayed behind to defend the city in a hopeless cause.

 

 

The war for Vukovar has been called “a holocaust of betrayal”.  People turned against neighbours. War fronts divided neighbourhoods.  A new word entered the English language “Srebrenica.”  And a new expression, “ethnic cleansing.”

 

After the war it was very hard to live in town.  Someone pointed out, “Every day one meets people who were butchers.” I remember listening to a CBC radio program about how the women faced men who had raped them and there were no consequences for those men.  The men continued to be respected. The women not so much. Of course, the consequences for the women were permanent. How can people live there?  They forget, that’s how.  Or at least they try. As best they can.

 

 

After the war, Serbia declared the city of Vukovar  part of the self-proclaimed Republic of Serbian Krajina and in fact its eastern headquarters. This until then was part of the newly formed country of Croatia, which it defied, and where many Serbians in Croatia lived. The Republic was an unrecognized geopolitical entity but rather a self-proclaimed state that created many problems for Croatia. It was active during the Croatian War of Independence fought between Croatia and Serbia, from 1991 to 1995 when Serbs tried to get their independence from the Croats as the Croats had tried to get their independence from Serbia. A Serbian state in Croatia was never recognized internationally and eventually was part of Croatia, but only after many soldiers died in fruitless war. In the end, after all the incredible destruction and desolation, this little piece of land was given back to Croatia. There was only one question left: what was it all about?

 

After the war for Vukovar was over, and Serbia had “won,” again, if it can be called that, the Serbians placed a banner over one of the streets in the crushed city. Almost every building was ruined. Ignatieff described the scene this way,

 

In the town square, a banner had been stretched over the road from one pulverized house to another. It reads: “Welcome to Vukovar, Year One.”  But eighteen months after entering the town, the Serbs have done nothing to rebuild it. It should be left as it is. UNESCO could fence it off and declare it a European heritage site. What could be more European, after all, than our tradition of senseless nationalist warfare?

 

Is this different than the current war between Ukraine and Russia. We think Russia is clearly the aggressor.

 

In the evening back on the boat, we had a great happy hour with old friends and new friends. We forgot about war. We could do that. Ukrainians find that difficult now. They are not so lucky. Neither were the people of Vukovar.

 

New Nationalism and Barbarism in Vukovar

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Croatia, Extremism, Hate, Serbia

 

Michael Ignatieff visited Vukovar shortly after the Croatian War ended and described it in his wonderful book Blood and Belonging, long before he started wasting his time and his talents on being the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and proved himself hopeless as a politician.

He pointed out that the Yugoslavian Army, then controlled by Serbia, lobbed 150,00 shells into the city. Not that the Croatians were entirely innocent either. The Croats dynamited parts of the city so that when the Serbs took over, they would gain nothing but rubble.

All wars are brutal, but particularly wars between brother nations. Civil Wars or Wars of Secession.  They bring out a particularly nasty hatred that brooks no restraint. Instead, in such wars, the hatred spews out like a fountain—a fountain of blood. That is one of the reasons people should resist the voices of extremists who demand a country breaks up. Separatists in Canada and the United States should remember this.

Ignatieff went on his journeys in order to write a book about what he called the new nationalism. What he found was not very pretty. Particularly in Vukovar, Ignatieff learned a lot about nationalism:

“It was in Vukovar that I began to see how nationalism works as a moral vocabulary. No one is responsible for anything, but the other side.  In the moral universe of pure nationalist delusion, all action is compelled by tragic necessity. Towns must be destroyed in “order to liberate them. Hostages must be shot.  Massacres must be undertaken. Why? Because the other side started it first.  Because the other side are beasts and understand no language but violence and reprisal. And so on.  Everyone in a nationalist war speaks in the language of fate, compulsion, and moral abdication.  Nowhere did this reach such a nadir as in Vukovar.  The pistol-toting hoodlums, holed up in the ruins of the Hotel Dunav, who came out and threatened to kill my translator simply because he was Hungarian; the Krajinan Information Minister who had no information that was not a lie; the mayor of Vukovar, who went around the Vukovar handing out Serbian flags to men whose legs ended at a bandaged stump—not one of these creatures ever expressed the slightest sense of shame, regret, or puzzlement that the insensate prosecution of their cause had led to the ruination of their own city. For all of them, the responsibility was solely Croat.”

The only thing new, about the new nationalism, is that it is even more bloody than the old.

Golubac Fortress, Serbia

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, civilization, Fortress, History, Serbia

 

After lunch on the boat, we travelled by bus to the Golubac Fortress, which was built on the south (Serbian) side of the Danube River. The fortress was built during the 14th century by the Medieval State of Serbia at the time when firearms advanced significantly and fortresses had to be changed. Like so much in the Balkans it had a tumultuous history.

 

Before it was built it was the site of a Roman settlement which was frequently fought over in the Middle Ages. In particular, the Ottoman Empire of the Turks frequently fought for control of the area with the Kingdom of Hungary. What were they fighting over?  The right to levy taxes on the Danube River traffic. It was passed between Turks, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Serbs, and Austrians until 1867 when it was turned over to the Serbs. Now, of course, it is the site of popular tourist attractions such as the fortress, but during its long history it successfully repelled 120 attacks.  That number tells a big story. European civilization was so often a place of wars. Wars over politics or religion or both. I remember years ago, when we visited New Zealand and one of the fellow guests at the place we stayed opined how lucky the locals were to have Europeans to bring civilization to the natives. Is that really civilization?

The name of the fortress and the modern town in its vicinity can be translated as the “Pigeon city” or the “Dove city” (golub, “pigeon”).  Some claim the name refers to the towers of the fortress that aim for the skies, like pigeons. Others say it was named after a beautiful girl Golubana who was fought over by a local Turkish pasha and a young Serbian man.

 

Fire arms were used from the first half of the 14th century but they had only a modest killing power so were used mainly to frighten the inexperienced. They were used to make a lot of noise in the hopes of eliciting panic and confusion in the ranks of the enemies. Of course, improvements made them more effective as well. Technological advances are always critical to military success in battle.

 

A big change came with advances to cannons in the 15th century. The architecture of fortresses had to change to make the walls more secure and add hole to use cannons against aggressors. Cannon towers were built as could be seen at the fortress here. Numerous cannonballs were found in the fortress. Fragments of barrels of cannons were also discovered.

Changes in firepower meant changes to the castle defences were required.

The western side of the castle was the most exposed to attack so a moat was built around the castle. But it never contained alligators. In the 15th century it had to be strengthened to be able to repeal modern, at the time, cannonballs. The towers were all walled for that purpose. Of course, they also had to make cannon holes in the walls so that cannonballs could be fired from inside the fortress upon the hapless invaders.

 

The position of the fortress made it very difficult to attack and allowed food to be brought in from the Danube River. It could really only be attacked from the west side and the river both of which exposed the attackers to weapons from inside the castle like bows and arrows, crossbows, catapults, or cannonballs.

 

Heavily armoured horsemen were the most powerful military force in the Middle Ages. A variety of other weapons were used to attack horsemen including maces, battle axes, swords hammers, clubs, battle scythes, and hooks. Because they were so heavy and bulky the mace could only be used by very powerful warriors. Lances and long spears were used for close combat. The infantry and cavalry used lances and long spears when attacking the horsemen. After breaking through the enemy’s line, the strategy was to toss the lances and spears and fight with swords.

The sword was the leading Medieval cold weapon and they kept getting “better” and more effective.  Better at killing in other words. Sort of like Modern nuclear weapons are even better than ancient cannonballs. In the late Middle Ages, the long and heavy swords were the weapon of choice and the swords could be double edged with extended handles that allowed them to be used with both hands to maximize the damage.  Maximizing the damage was always the goal. Armour was also important and kept having to be constantly improved to keep up with improvements to the swords. The Middle Ages had arms races just like modern armies.

That’s what civilization is all about.

 

Iron Gates Gorge Serbia

Fortress, Serbia, Travel

 

One morning in Serbia, after breakfast, we did not go on an excursion as we usually did. Instead, we went sight-seeing by our big riverboat. Sadly, the photographs I took that morning have disappeared out of my camera and off the hard drive to which I had loaded them and it appeared, off face of the earth. Vanished just like sanity in the Congress of the United States of America. And I was sad. In the afternoon, using the same memory card, camera, and computer everything was in order. Why was that? I had no idea.

The photo above was taken later that afternoon. The fortress is called Golubac Castle and it guards the Iron Gates Gorge. I will say more about it in the next post.

 

We were in the region of the Danube referred to as Iron Gates Gorge. It is really a series of gorges.  The biggest is Đerdap on the Serbian side of the Danube River. It was spectacular. The gorges form the boundary between Serbia to the south and Romania to the north.

 

It encompasses a route of 134 km (83 mi) but is really just the last barrier on the route. It has 2 hydro-electric dams and 2 power stations. On the Romanian side it constitutes Đerdap National Park and Iron Gates National Park on the Romanian side. A wider protected area was declared on the Serbian side and declared a UNESCO global geopark in 2020.

 

The hydro-electric dams have created a massive reservoir that led to the forced displacement of approximately 17,000 people from both Romania and Yugoslavia, including the inhabitants of the island of Ada Kaleh and at least five other villages in Romania. The affected populations had to relocate to new areas, and their former settlements were submerged by the rising water levels. This also caused massive anxiety among the people moved which we were told still affects them 5 decades later.

 

Kazan gorge is found at its narrowest point. The currents where the gorge narrows, such as in the Sip Channel were so strong that until 1973, ships had to be dragged upstream along the canal by locomotive power guided by locals. The Great Kazan (kazan meaning “cauldron” or “reservoir”) is the most famous and the most narrow gorge of the whole route: the river here narrows to 150 m and reaches a depth of up to 53 m (174 ft). This quite impressive considering that this year where we embarked on our cruise the water depth was a mere 1.5 metres, too shallow for most vessels.

 

Nearby is the Tabula Traiana or Trajan’s Plaque which is a Roman memorial plaque found on the Serbian side of the Iron Gates. The plaque was erected by Roman Emperor Trajan to commemorate the completion of his military road along the Danube. It was declared a Monument of Culture of Exceptional Importance in 1979 and is protected by the Republic of Serbia.

 

The plaque and the accompanying Roman road were constructed between AD 98 and 100. At its peak, the road was an engineering marvel that was partly carved into the cliff faces and supported by a wooden scaffold over the water. The monument was relocated in 1972 when the Iron Gate I Hydroelectric Power Station was built, raising the water level of the Danube by about 35 meters.