How much of the Balkans did the Ottomans actually conquer?

On page 4, the article discusses how Obrenovic leased land/other sources of income within the muqata'a legal category to his political allies and demanded free labor from the peasants-- both practices with Ottoman antecedents-- through the later 1810s. Those practices were steadily rolled back as political pressure on Obrenovic from other Serbs (revolts, protests) intensified, but only in 1833-34 (a full thirty years after the original Serb revolt in 1804) was the feudal system replaced with a legal framework for private property. The "Conclusion" section of the article further states that, far from being easy, the process of replacing the land regime was lengthy and slow, and was not over until a good portion of modern Serb history had already elapsed. I think that's an adequate basis for claiming that the land regime remained important during a time when a lot of other features of Serbia were in flux.

I think there's some confusion with the timeline here.
The article only deals with the 1816-1835 period, not with the first phase (1804-1813) of the Serbian revolution. Serbia declared independence, enacted a complete abolition of Ottoman feudalism, and was eventually crushed in 1813. Leaving Obrenovic to pick up the pieces and oversee the second phase: two decades of wrestling concessions from the Ottomans, piece by piece, through intense politicking, bribery and threats.
The feudalism of 1816-1833 was not some kind of Serbian feudalism, it was quite literally Ottoman feudalism - Muslim Sipahis and everything. And it is no coincidence that the Obrenovic government abolished its ocassional malpractices at the same time as the Sipahi class. In other words, we're talking about ~16 years of a hybrid regime, which was ended at the first available opportunity.

Yeah, I won't deny that my post ignores Ottoman atrocities. Even if out-of-control Janissaries get blamed for much of it, even after the abolition of the Janissary corps the "professional" Ottoman army was using Darfur-style tactics in 1870s Bulgaria. In that part of the post, I was trying to dispute the OP's claim that Ottoman culture seemed absent by saying that it was previously much more apparent, and that portions of it were purposely edited out over the centuries. That required me to put the spotlight on Balkan-nationalist violence, but violence going one way does not preclude violence going the other. The Ottoman capacity for bigotry, institutional discrimination, misrule, and mass violence is well-attested, it's not like Gladstone was freaking out over nothing.

Fair enough. And yeah, OP's claims were bizzare in like 5 completely different ways
 
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.

You seem to have a pretty left wing attitude regarding the issue, oddly enough you seem to be defending a colonial power leaving behind a fifth column, which you probably would be attacking relentlessly if we were conversing about a Western power's colonial legacy :O

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

So you mourn the loss of those perished or disenfranchised in Austro-Hungarian reconquest of the region, but Ottoman subjects should've simply bent over to their imperial overlords, else the burden of their misery is one of their own? LMAO.

If slave morality was a post, this would be it.
 
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.

Only seeing this now. Many states started as a vassal including Bulgaria and Serbia. But as soon as it turned out to be dangerous to have such vassals like Bulgaria they were annexed. Same with Serbia. Bulgaria formed a threat on the capital Edirne while Serbia turned out to be a cakewalk for Hungary in the early 15th century.

Wallachia, Moldova and Transylvania survived due to it position and population. Posed no great danger until the late 18th century when it turned out Russia could easily walk in.
 
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?

Europe was rightly terrified by the Ottomans during their height of power. Central Europe was right at their doorstep, including Austria. The Ottomans were at the gates of Vienna twice, basically driving into the heart of Europe and if they had been luckier they would have reduced Austria to something of a vassal. In any case the "colonial Western European historians" only want to point out that the Ottomans controlled vast swathes of Europe for far longer than European empires controlled the ME, yet all the problems of the ME today are convenient laid at the feet of the Europeans. While there was some conflict in the Balkans and problems with the drawing of borders and Yugoslavia, the issue was ultimately solved with far less bloodshed (in the Balkans itself) than what has gone on in the affected ME countries.

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.

It's not so much Ottoman rule, which was benign as far as empires go. It was the aftermath of the breakup and the genocide perpetrated by the descendants of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks which leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many. Since the Turks were the representative ruling class of the Ottoman Empire, the empire is also associated with the genocides.
 

Vuu

Banned
You seem to have a pretty left wing attitude regarding the issue, oddly enough you seem to be defending a colonial power leaving behind a fifth column, which you probably would be attacking relentlessly if we were conversing about a Western power's colonial legacy :O



So you mourn the loss of those perished or disenfranchised in Austro-Hungarian reconquest of the region, but Ottoman subjects should've simply bent over to their imperial overlords, else the burden of their misery is one of their own? LMAO.

If slave morality was a post, this would be it.

Slave morality? Nah, we just appreciate our own culture more than our pockets. Something our enemies might find soon to be a wise thing
 
you seem to be defending a colonial power leaving behind a fifth column
The Ottomans were not a colonial power.

There was no difference whatsoever in the way the Ottomans ruled Bulgaria compared to the way they ruled Anatolia. There was never any attempt to extract the resources of the colonial periphery for the sole benefit of the heartland. That's a fundamental difference with European colonial empires.
 
The Ottomans were not a colonial power.

There was no difference whatsoever in the way the Ottomans ruled Bulgaria compared to the way they ruled Anatolia. There was never any attempt to extract the resources of the colonial periphery for the sole benefit of the heartland. That's a fundamental difference with European colonial empires.
You are overlooking the practice of settler colonialism of which the Ottoman Empire is a good example.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
Europe was rightly terrified by the Ottomans during their height of power. Central Europe was right at their doorstep, including Austria. The Ottomans were at the gates of Vienna twice, basically driving into the heart of Europe and if they had been luckier they would have reduced Austria to something of a vassal. In any case the "colonial Western European historians" only want to point out that the Ottomans controlled vast swathes of Europe for far longer than European empires controlled the ME, yet all the problems of the ME today are convenient laid at the feet of the Europeans. While there was some conflict in the Balkans and problems with the drawing of borders and Yugoslavia, the issue was ultimately solved with far less bloodshed (in the Balkans itself) than what has gone on in the affected ME countries.



It's not so much Ottoman rule, which was benign as far as empires go. It was the aftermath of the breakup and the genocide perpetrated by the descendants of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks which leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many. Since the Turks were the representative ruling class of the Ottoman Empire, the empire is also associated with the genocides.

You are arguing with a corpse there, mate.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
The Ottomans were not a colonial power.

There was no difference whatsoever in the way the Ottomans ruled Bulgaria compared to the way they ruled Anatolia. There was never any attempt to extract the resources of the colonial periphery for the sole benefit of the heartland. That's a fundamental difference with European colonial empires.

I think the word 'colonial' is not necessarily the most useful here, but there were elements of domination and cultural supremacism in Ottoman government that distinguished the character of their relationship with Turkic-speaking and non-Turkic territories, and Muslim and non-Muslim territories.
 
the character of their relationship with Turkic-speaking and non-Turkic territories, and Muslim and non-Muslim territories.
For the former: what example of this is there in the Early Modern era? Most Turkic-speaking people, with whom the Ottoman elite did not identify (Türk was a country bumpkin in Ottoman parlance), lived the same sort of lives under the same sort of rule as most Albanian- or Greek-speaking people did under Ottoman rule. Actually, the net quality of life was very possibly worse for the average Anatolian Turk than the average Bulgarian Christian, because eastern Anatolia, unlike Bulgaria, was an imperial periphery.

For the latter: Muslims were privileged, but they were privileged no matter whether their parents were Muslim or Christian, whether they spoke Kurdish or Albanian, whether they lived in Sarajevo or Aleppo. Compare to how even Western-educated Indians were discriminated against in the British Empire.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
For the former: what example of this is there in the Early Modern era? Most Turkic-speaking people, with whom the Ottoman elite did not identify (Türk was a country bumpkin in Ottoman parlance), lived the same sort of lives under the same sort of rule as most Albanian- or Greek-speaking people did under Ottoman rule. Actually, the net quality of life was very possibly worse for the average Anatolian Turk than the average Bulgarian Christian, because eastern Anatolia, unlike Bulgaria, was an imperial periphery.

For the latter: Muslims were privileged, but they were privileged no matter whether their parents were Muslim or Christian, whether they spoke Kurdish or Albanian, whether they lived in Sarajevo or Aleppo. Compare to how even Western-educated Indians were discriminated against in the British Empire.

In terms of ethnicity, I'm referring to the Arabic speaking areas here, the Arabic-speaking areas were ruled principally by Turkic-speaking elites, who mixed with local populations to form Turko-Arabic Kouloughli groups. There were deliberate attempts to ensure a large ethnic Turkish population in Arabic territories, the goal being 5%. Similar population transfers occurred into Europe, but with lower population goals. These were ethnic turks rather than Ottomans, which you are right to distinguish. Therefore the Ottoman Empire did have a preference for Turkish ethnicity, even though it was much more multi-ethnic and accepting of minorities than any of its successors in Europe or Asia.
 
And there are abduction of people by British as well namely the Slave trade. There are more slaves taken to America by the British than the Ottomans ever taking kids in the Janissary Corps.

I honestly am surprised that people view the Ottomans as absolute evil considering that some states did more horrible things. And I am not even talking about the Inquisition...
Abducttion of people by Ottomans in border refions of conflict was comon. For example research from Slovakia is showing that in 17th century in 2 years some 5000 people were abducted (1625-1627). Article itself states 17th century was better when compared with Ottoman actions century earlier.

For example Ottoman ride to Nitra area today Slovakia ended with 80 burnt villages and thousands of inhabitants enslaved in 1530.
 
T he Ottomans were not a colonial power.

There was no difference whatsoever in the way the Ottomans ruled Bulgaria compared to the way they ruled Anatolia. There was never any attempt to extract the resources of the colonial periphery for the sole benefit of the heartland. That's a fundamental difference with European colonial empires.
If you wanted to be pedantic you could argue that, like most traditional empires, they extracted the resources of most of their territory for the benefit of the imperial capital and Ottoman elites. Is that really so different from the European colonial empires where the resources extracted principally benefited the aristocratic and commercial elites, while also feeding the expansion of the state's payroll?

Note that metropole is literally derived from metropolis, ie.mother city.
 
Most Turkic-speaking people, with whom the Ottoman elite did not identify (Türk was a country bumpkin in Ottoman parlance), lived the same sort of lives under the same sort of rule as most Albanian- or Greek-speaking people did under Ottoman rule. Actually, the net quality of life was very possibly worse for the average Anatolian Turk than the average Bulgarian Christian, because eastern Anatolia, unlike Bulgaria, was an imperial periphery.

It's true that the late-stage Ottoman elites were more cosmopolitan in character and identified with the Greeks as well as Europe, but this was not the case until at least the early 19th century. As for national feeling among the Europeans, it is too complex a subject to justify away with economic well-being. I will note that when the Europeans conquered empires, a vast gulf already existed between themselves and their colonies in terms of economic well-being (due to the industrial/scientific/agricultural revolutions), while the same is not true for the Ottomans and their conquered nations. In addition, many regions of Africa and Asia conquered did not originally have a strong nationalism, compared to the Europeans conquered by the Ottomans, which was exacerbated by historical religious tensions between Islam and Christianity. I might also note that despite the more prominent imperial core-periphery relationship of European empires, the percentage of GDP that European countries depended on from extraction from their colonies was very small. Trade and investment was a much bigger percentage, but these things could have been done theoretically absent European rule as well. Whereas with the Ottomans, evidently extraction from the conquered areas provided a much greater percentage of the national economy, with the caveat that most areas of the empire were well-integrated and discrepancies between areas (which were not large to begin with) was relatively small.

For the latter: Muslims were privileged, but they were privileged no matter whether their parents were Muslim or Christian, whether they spoke Kurdish or Albanian, whether they lived in Sarajevo or Aleppo. Compare to how even Western-educated Indians were discriminated against in the British Empire.

The conditions which fostered racism between Europeans and non-Europeans (vast cultural/geographical barriers and a vast discrepancy in economic/technological development by the 19th century) simply did not exist between the Ottoman elites and their subject nations. Firstly they were geographically continuous, inheriting the imperial model from the Byzantines and Romans before them, second the Ottomans won their empire through hard wars of conquest and subjugation rather than waltzing in with superior ships, weapons.

What this means is that the Ottomans were not inherently better imperialists than the European empires as you seem to imply, absent context and historical factors. If the Ottomans had possessed the power that the Europeans held over non-Europeans of the period, they probably would have behaved worse. European rule over the colonies was largely laissez-faire outside of economic interests, they made little attempt to assimilate or convert non-Europeans as this was intended as an unequal relationship from the start. What you take to be racism however, should be seen as a blessing from the various diverse cultures, religions that endured far better through European than Ottoman rule. (absent the Americas of course, but that was mostly the doing of Old World diseases) What you take to be benign Ottoman cultural and religious influence to assimilate peoples of the empire, would be seen as coercive from those who never wanted to be part of the empire in the first place.

And lastly, as this was mostly a colonial rather than "national" arrangement, the European empires dissolved with relatively little fuss while the Ottomans disintegrated into genocidal warfare. What conflict emerged from the independent colonies had less to do with the European powers compared to the role played by the Ottoman Turks (who identified with the former empire) in perpetuating conflict and violence within areas formerly ruled by the Ottomans. Even before the empire's final breakup, patriotic Turks already had a habit of massacring people (such as the Greeks) who dared revolt against the empire they self-identified with. Clearly from the point of view of dissenters of empire (of which there were plenty in both the European empires and the Ottomans), claims of colonial rule and tutelage were far easier to deal with than claims to national unity.
 
Last edited:
The Ottomans were not a colonial power.

There was no difference whatsoever in the way the Ottomans ruled Bulgaria compared to the way they ruled Anatolia. There was never any attempt to extract the resources of the colonial periphery for the sole benefit of the heartland. That's a fundamental difference with European colonial empires.
This is a very strange definition of colonialism.
 
Metropole-periphery distinctions are fundamental to any discussion of colonialism, and I find it very strange that you apparently aren't aware of it.
The definition you present for that distinction would classify New France as part of the French metropole as it had the same laws and a considerable amount of what was extracted there was used for the development of the colony.

Needless to say this represents a problem.

Edit: Similarly, what does your rigid criteria make of the Estado Novo, which considered its "Overseas Provinces" to be an extension of the Metropole and invested heavily into their social and economic development? Because if they can only be colonies if they are explicitly governed as colonies and their resources are harvested for "the sole benefit of the heartland", then the Estado Novo wouldn't count as a colonial empire.
 
Last edited:
Metropole-periphery distinctions are fundamental to any discussion of colonialism, and I find it very strange that you apparently aren't aware of it.

To say no metropole-periphery dynamic existed in the Ottoman Empire is to say none existed for the Byzantine Empire or the Roman Empire or the Chinese empires. It's patently ridiculous. As I already said, the Ottoman state extracted large amounts of revenue from the provinces as empires are wont to do, and some regions (like Istanbul, Alexandria) benefited from that. Landownership too was skewed towards elites living in the major cities. Ultimately if you analyze trends of taxation and landownership, the Ottomans had an even more unequal dynamic than many examples of European colonialism (say British India), albeit without the overt racism that the Europeans exhibited.
 
The definition you present for that distinction would classify New France as part of the French metropole as it had the same laws and a considerable amount of what was extracted there was used for the development of the colony.

Needless to say this represents a problem.

Edit: Similarly, what does your rigid criteria make of the Estado Novo, which considered its "Overseas Provinces" to be an extension of the Metropole and invested heavily into their social and economic development? Because if they can only be colonies if they are explicitly governed as colonies and their resources are harvested for "the sole benefit of the heartland", then the Estado Novo wouldn't count as a colonial empire.

New France did not have the "same laws" as metropolitan France. For example, In 1691, De Pontchartrain, Minister of the Marine, declared that "Negroes brought into France would be free upon their arrival.". While this wasn't rigidly enforced and there were frequent exceptions and other laws, it certainly wouldn't make any sense if this applied to French slave colonies. It certainly wasn't ruled the same way either. Are there any examples of a French province in Europe that was run by the Minister of the Navy? No bc they were considered part of the core French state. It wasn't until the Thermidor Constitution that the colonies were considered an integral part of France. Furthermore, I don't know what your sources are but the simply investing some of the profits of the colony back into it doesn't stop the colonial-metropole relationship from being fundamentally extractive. Obviously the metropole wants profits to increase and for the colony to be protected. The key is to look at what kind of development is happening. A colonial government may invest in increasing the size of plantations and creating a big army because those are directly relevant to the purpose of the colony-extracting resources for the benefit of the metropole. On the other hand, you will not see schools and other inclusive institutions being built (though settler colonies are somewhat different)

I'm not very familiar with the Estado Novo but there are cases of colonies being considered de jure part of the metropole while still being treated as de facto colonies. France and Algeria is a good example of this.

To say no metropole-periphery dynamic existed in the Ottoman Empire is to say none existed for the Byzantine Empire or the Roman Empire or the Chinese empires. It's patently ridiculous. As I already said, the Ottoman state extracted large amounts of revenue from the provinces as empires are wont to do, and some regions (like Istanbul, Alexandria) benefited from that. Landownership too was skewed towards elites living in the major cities. Ultimately if you analyze trends of taxation and landownership, the Ottomans had an even more unequal dynamic than many examples of European colonialism (say British India), albeit without the overt racism that the Europeans exhibited.

I don't know how you somehow managed to pick the 3 empires in history that have had the least amount of a metropole-periphery distinction ever. I mean maybe you could have chosen something like Spain and the seventeen provinces but I guess not??? All 3 of those empires had some of the most inclusive institutions of their time with even very marginal areas being well integrated into the core state. That you use the words "patently ridiculous" makes me ask you for your definition of "metropole-periphery dynamic" in the context of colonialism. .

Aside from that, I'd really like to see your sources on the Ottomans "unequal dynamic" compared to european colonialism.
 
Top