How much of the Balkans did the Ottomans actually conquer?

Maoistic

Banned
The narrative of the Ottoman advance in Europe always struck me as anti-Islamic propaganda on the part of Western European historians working for Britain and other European colonial empires and on the part of Romantic-era ultra-nationalists who would evolve into far-right monarchists and fascists in the 20th century. How much did the Ottomans actually conquer and control in the Balkans? For instance, was Bulgaria actually conquered, or was it only forced into a kind of vassal state?

I ask this because for all the narratives of Ottoman conquest, rule and brutality, the Balkans remain predominantly with their European cultural identities. The peoples of the Balkans don't identify as Turkish or Arabic, they don't speak said languages either and Islam is a very insignificant minority overall, which is very strong evidence against the traditional Romantic ultra-nationalist narrative of Ottoman conquest and tyranny in the region.
 

Vuu

Banned
It's standard hypocrisy. When you need to talk shit you say "muh Ottomans ruin Balkan yadda yadda", but then, after the revolutions, all the muslims were cha- um, kindly asked to leave, except in Albania and Bosnia, which were satellite states of... That's right, Austria-Hungary, who talked the most shit by the way.

The Ottoman occupation was nasty primarily from an economic view. They tried to force assimilation via economic incentives and the infamous blood tax, but we were stubborn and simply moved to the hills. This though resulted in poverty, but such is life when your motto is "the turks arm is bloody to the elbow, but to the turkified to the shoulder". Plus, there was pretty much a permanent rebellion, which is why even if they managed to take Vienna, they would start getting more and more bad time because of eternal hajduk harrasment
 
AFAIK it comes down to a mix of relatively recent population movements, the light touch of the millet system, and the Ottoman method of enforcing religious supremacy to explain why there aren’t so many Muslims/Turks in ex-Ottoman Europe as you’d expect.

Quite a lot of European Muslims fled or were forcibly extradited to Turkey during the final decades of the Ottoman Empire. The nationalistic revolutions were terrifying to these populations, many of whom were actively targeted by the revolutionaries. Many of the revolutionaries were not much better than armed thugs anyway, especially when not part of foreign Great Power meddling, meaning that Muslims were acceptable targets for disproportionate violence.

The millet system in the centuries before the age of nationalism hampered conversion effectively as it allowed the Orthodox and other Christian populations to continue practice of their faith without direct repression, which allowed their cultures to stay similar as well.

Lastly, the Ottoman methods of promoting Islam involved less of a focus on conversion and more of a focus on imperial superiority IMO. The devshirme system was arguably an effective propagandistic and political tool but hardly served to endear Islam to the nation’s Christian population.

As for European (Great Power) bias against the Ottoman Empire, you’re completely correct. During the 19th century the GPs came to feel that they were suffering the Ottomans to exist and began to play up the Empire’s flaws as part of their own imperial ambitions.

EDIT: There are significant populations of Muslims/Turks in certain narrow regions of the Balkans, especially in the southern parts. Some of these are under active cultural suppression. One example is in Western Thrace where they are stubbornly referred to as the “Muslim minority” despite being clearly specifically Turkish and have governmental interference in their religious leadership IIRC.
 
Last edited:
They had military control over the Balkans. And as far as I know, that's the only requirement necessary to call it "conquest". "Vassal states" are still under the larger category of "conquests" if the dominant country achieved the vassal status of the lesser by military intervention. Just cause they didn't try to culturally assimilate the Balkans doesn't mean it counts as not conquered. Furthermore, there is a large Turkish minority in Bulgaria and large muslim populations in Bosnia, Albania, and Kosovo (which is certainly a direct consequence of Ottoman rule). It has nothing to do with "ultra-nationalism" or "anti-Islamic propaganda". The Ottomans controlled the Balkans in whole or in part for 500 years. That is conquest, plain and simple, unless you radically redefine what counts as "conquest"
 
The narrative of the Ottoman advance in Europe always struck me as anti-Islamic propaganda on the part of Western European historians working for Britain and other European colonial empires and on the part of Romantic-era ultra-nationalists who would evolve into far-right monarchists and fascists in the 20th century. How much did the Ottomans actually conquer and control in the Balkans? For instance, was Bulgaria actually conquered, or was it only forced into a kind of vassal state?

I ask this because for all the narratives of Ottoman conquest, rule and brutality, the Balkans remain predominantly with their European cultural identities. The peoples of the Balkans don't identify as Turkish or Arabic, they don't speak said languages either and Islam is a very insignificant minority overall, which is very strong evidence against the traditional Romantic ultra-nationalist narrative of Ottoman conquest and tyranny in the region.

Except for some parts of Croatia and Montenegro the Ottomans ruled over all of the Balkans excluding some of the Ionian Islands. Wallachia was a vassal, Montenegro was also Vassal.
 

Maoistic

Banned
It has nothing to do with "ultra-nationalism" or "anti-Islamic propaganda". The Ottomans controlled the Balkans in whole or in part for 500 years. That is conquest, plain and simple, unless you radically redefine what counts as "conquest"

There is a lot of anti-Islamic ultra-nationalism in the popular histories, that is for sure. I mean, when you have to invent a whole grammatically atrocious new word (suzerainty) that didn't exist before to describe the political situation in the Balkans, you realise how tenuous are many of the claims regarding Ottoman "rule" there. Similarly with the idea of "vassalage" and the even more tenuous "tributary status" that I have also seen sometimes. I don't doubt that the Ottomans were able to occupy Balkan cities, sack them and plunder, but that doesn't mean they were able to fully conquer and annex them into their empire. It's more similar to the way Huns, Vikings or Mongols raided certain territories without ever establishing political rule over them. At most, the Ottomans were able to assert themselves from time to time, but never actually fully establish their rule like they did in the Byzantine territories they conquered.
 
There is a lot of anti-Islamic ultra-nationalism in the popular histories, that is for sure. I mean, when you have to invent a whole grammatically atrocious new word (suzerainty) that didn't exist before to describe the political situation in the Balkans, you realise how tenuous are many of the claims regarding Ottoman "rule" there. Similarly with the idea of "vassalage" and the even more tenuous "tributary status" that I have also seen sometimes. I don't doubt that the Ottomans were able to occupy Balkan cities, sack them and plunder, but that doesn't mean they were able to fully conquer and annex them into their empire. It's more similar to the way Huns, Vikings or Mongols raided certain territories without ever establishing political rule over them. At most, the Ottomans were able to assert themselves from time to time, but never actually fully establish their rule like they did in the Byzantine territories they conquered.
I mean you could say that about Hungary and maybe Romanian lands(at times at least) but Rumelia was one of the solidest Ottoman territories around, alongside Aegean Anatolia.

Wait a second, what are you defining the Balkans as? Ottoman Bulgaria wasn't that lawless for example.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I ask this because for all the narratives of European conquest, rule and brutality, the North Africa and Asia remain predominantly with their North African and Asian cultural identities. The peoples of North Africa and Asia don't identify as English or French, they don't speak said languages as their mother tongue and Christianity is a very insignificant minority overall, which is very strong evidence against the traditional anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist narrative of European conquest and tyranny in those regions.

or, to put a different spin on it:

I ask this because for all the narratives of Japanese conquest, rule and brutality, Korea and China remain predominantly with their Korean and Chinese cultural identities. The peoples of Korea and China don't identify as Japanese, they don't speak said language as their mother tongue and Shintoism and Japanese schools of Buddhism are nonexistent, which is very strong evidence against the traditional anti-Japanese, Korean and Chinese nationalist narratives of Japanese conquest and tyranny in those regions.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
As for European (Great Power) bias against the Ottoman Empire, you’re completely correct. During the 19th century the GPs came to feel that they were suffering the Ottomans to exist and began to play up the Empire’s flaws as part of their own imperial ambitions.

It seems to me that if the GPs were were up their elbows in the blood of the Ottomans, the local Balkan nationalities were up to their shoulders in blood, and hardly GPs were they.
 
It seems to me that if the GPs were were up their elbows in the blood of the Ottomans, the local Balkan nationalities were up to their shoulders in blood, and hardly GPs were they.

Yeah, but they had actual national interest in defeating the Ottomans. The British just wanted to expand their empire.

Although some of what the Balkan nations were claiming as rightful territory was pretty damn imperialistic too...
 
The narrative of the Ottoman advance in Europe always struck me as anti-Islamic propaganda on the part of Western European historians working for Britain and other European colonial empires and on the part of Romantic-era ultra-nationalists who would evolve into far-right monarchists and fascists in the 20th century. How much did the Ottomans actually conquer and control in the Balkans? For instance, was Bulgaria actually conquered, or was it only forced into a kind of vassal state?

I ask this because for all the narratives of Ottoman conquest, rule and brutality, the Balkans remain predominantly with their European cultural identities. The peoples of the Balkans don't identify as Turkish or Arabic, they don't speak said languages either and Islam is a very insignificant minority overall, which is very strong evidence against the traditional Romantic ultra-nationalist narrative of Ottoman conquest and tyranny in the region.
As you can clearly see the Ottomans had negligible influence on the demographics and culture of the contemporary Balkans. Because we all know that a conquest only happens if it has massive demographic effects visible up to the present day. Just look at Indonesia, they speak Dutch and are all Calvinists! The fact that the Ottomans established civil governments in these Balkan territories means nothing, it wasn't conquest it was super-vassalage.
 

Maoistic

Banned
As you can clearly see the Ottomans had negligible influence on the demographics and culture of the contemporary Balkans. Because we all know that a conquest only happens if it has massive demographic effects visible up to the present day. Just look at Indonesia, they speak Dutch and are all Calvinists! The fact that the Ottomans established civil governments in these Balkan territories means nothing, it wasn't conquest it was super-vassalage.
The Dutch case in Indonesia is exceptional even in Dutch possessions. See the Dutch Caribbean, Suriname and South Africa as cases where Protestantism and the Dutch language were indeed imposed. Asia and to a certain extent North Africa and the Middle East are case studies for why European culture wasn't as imposed as it was in the colonies of Oceania, the Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa.

And I never said the absence of culture was definitive proof anyway, only that it is strong evidence for lack of conquest. It also goes against the pattern of Ottomanisation of most of the Byzantine Empire, where Christianity almost ceased to exist completely save for the Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church and some extremely small communities, with Greek also getting completely replaced by Turkish. Greece itself remained Christian and Greek-speaking, but Asia Minor and the surrounding area of Constantinople was Ottomanised thoroughly.
 
The Dutch case in Indonesia is exceptional even in Dutch possessions. See the Dutch Caribbean, Suriname and South Africa as cases where Protestantism and the Dutch language were indeed imposed. Asia and to a certain extent North Africa and the Middle East are case studies for why European culture wasn't as imposed as it was in the colonies of Oceania, the Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa.
It's almost like it's much more difficult to impose a new civilization on top of a well established advanced civilization, as opposed to imposing a civilization onto a people who don't have matured systems of writing/agriculture/metallurgy/codified religion...

The only surprise regarding the cultural impact of the Ottomans is that the Bosnians and Albanians didn't remain Catholic.

And I never said the absence of culture was definitive proof anyway, only that it is strong evidence for lack of conquest.
It's a really weak argument which simply doesn't follow any logic. There have been plenty of expansionist polities whose cultural impact was negligible or ephemeral.
 
Last edited:
33~40% of the Balkans was Muslim on the dawn of the Greek War of Independence, and the most Muslim areas for most of the Ottoman period were Thrace, northern Greece, southern Bulgaria, and Macedonia. The current religious demographics are not representative of the Ottoman period.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
The narrative of Turkish oppression is very much overplayed by the successor states (as Louis de Bernieres wrote "in fact, the Turks weren't as bad as the Turks"). Of course, the Turks did oppress the population of the Balkans to a degree, as an Early Modern ruling class stealing the agricultural surplus was their raison d'être. But the ethnic and religious aspects of this are overplayed, yes, a few monasteries got sacked, there was the infidel tax and some people in Christian milets had to become janissaries with little choice in the matter. Small potatoes compared to the wars of religion in the rest of Europe, and lets remember when Catholics were emancipated in England, 1829!

However, the idea that the Ottoman empire didn't control the Balkans is taking revisionism a step too far. The Turks controlled the territory, and many local people converted to Islam voluntarily, many later moving to Turkey as part of the population transfers of the 19th/20th centuries. But despite this, there are still indigenous Muslim minorities in every Balkan state from Romania and Croatia southwards.
 
There is a lot of anti-Islamic ultra-nationalism in the popular histories, that is for sure. I mean, when you have to invent a whole grammatically atrocious new word (suzerainty) that didn't exist before to describe the political situation in the Balkans, you realise how tenuous are many of the claims regarding Ottoman "rule" there. Similarly with the idea of "vassalage" and the even more tenuous "tributary status" that I have also seen sometimes. I don't doubt that the Ottomans were able to occupy Balkan cities, sack them and plunder, but that doesn't mean they were able to fully conquer and annex them into their empire. It's more similar to the way Huns, Vikings or Mongols raided certain territories without ever establishing political rule over them. At most, the Ottomans were able to assert themselves from time to time, but never actually fully establish their rule like they did in the Byzantine territories they conquered.

Never once did I claim that there is *never* anti-Islamism or ultra-nationalism in any retellings of history, please don't misrepresent what I said. I said that *in the specific context of examining Ottoman political administration in the Balkans* the idea that nationalism has led to a slanted portrayal with regard to the totality Ottoman rule does not significantly influence the classical historical conception of the period.

For the next part of my argument, here's a relevant word:
Conquest: n. the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.
"the conquest of the Aztecs by the Spanish" synonyms: defeat, vanquishment, annihilation, overthrow, subjugation, rout, mastery, crushing; More
n. a territory that has been gained by the use of subjugation and military force. plural noun: conquests "colonial conquests"

This definition of conquest (from google) does not clarify to what degree the conqueror must assume control over the conquered in order for the definition to apply. By this definition, the degree of control (from vassal states to fully incorporated territories) is a meaningless distinction when discussing whether or not the Ottomans effectively conquered the Balkans.

So what, therefore, are you asking? To be sure, definitions aren't static or technically even authoritative. Are you saying we should redefine what we mean by "conquest"? Because the examples you give of "conquests that don't really count" (e.g. Mongols) are regularly referred to as conquests by historians, because they were able to establish political control over the areas they conquered (Golden horde? Yuan dynasty? Ilkhanate? These do not count as "political control"?). Furthermore, the idea that because the Ottomans didn't 100% control all of the countryside "outside of cities" sets an impossible standard for historical conquests. No country in history has had total and complete control of all people within their territory, and denying the reality of Ottoman political dominance in the Balkans on that basis is a blatant goalpost shift. The Ottomans installed governors in the territories they conquered, which clearly goes beyond "just sacking and plundering Balkan cities".

Third and finally, we can be certain of the security of Ottoman claims on the Balkans by examining the role of great powers in the Balkans between the 1450s and 1914. A fundamental principle of realist power politics are that, if a power vacuum exists, great powers will exert their influence as far as they can until a stable status quo can be established (this can be seen most clearly in the unification of Germany in the 1860s and the US/Soviet occupation of Europe after WWII). By this principle, if the Ottomans did not have political control of the Balkans, other great powers would exert their influence in the area instead, and this did happen eventually, but it took until the Greek War of Independence for foreign powers to deny the Ottomans total control over their peripheral territories. They were able to do this because by that time, Ottoman power had been declining for some time, but at the peak of their influence (the late 1400s to mid 1700s) they had undeniable control over the Balkans.

I think I've made my point fairly clear, but in case there's any confusion, and so it is not possible to misrepresent my views I will summarize my response as follows:
1. You asked, "Did the Ottomans really conquer the Balkans?", and the definition of conquest clearly lays out that "conquest" on its own simply indicates military and political dominance over some foreign country, therefore their degree of control is not necessarily relevant, unless you redefine what you mean by "conquest".
2. No country has ever had 100% total control over all of its inhabitants, so setting that standard as the bar for what counts as "conquest" is disingenuous.
3. If the Ottomans did not conquer the Balkans, then some other country would have, and during the peak of Ottoman rule (1450s-1700s) no such country was able to do so, which is strong evidence that the Ottomans did effectively conquer and maintain solid control over the Balkans.
 
Last edited:
Top