How much of the Balkans did the Ottomans actually conquer?

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."
And said law was in effect in New France. Unless you know of some exemption allowing Habitants to bring their slaves to France without penalty. The Customs of Paris most certainly were the (civil) law by which New France operated.

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)
New France had some fairly sophisticated industries like textiles and ship building, and it definitely had schools though the small size and dispersed nature of the colony's population limited their development.
 
New France had some fairly sophisticated industries like textiles and ship building, and it definitely had schools though the small size and dispersed nature of the colony's population limited their development.
Settler colonies are atypical because they're focused on dispossessing the indigenous people more so than exploiting them. Now, the indigenous people of New France were clearly not ruled in the same way as the subjects of the French monarchy in France itself, while the indigenous people of Egypt and Serbia were ruled in no significantly different way from the subjects of the Ottoman Padishah in the Ottoman heartland of the Aegean region.
 
And said law was in effect in New France. Unless you know of some exemption allowing Habitants to bring their slaves to France without penalty. The Customs of Paris most certainly were the (civil) law by which New France operated.


New France had some fairly sophisticated industries like textiles and ship building, and it definitely had schools though the small size and dispersed nature of the colony's population limited their development.

New France had slaves though? It wasn't a full on plantation slave society like in the caribbean at the time of French rule but there were definitely slaves. If New France is a part of France, than why weren't the slaves there freed? It's because there is still a fundamental distinction between colony and metropole. French law applies selectively.


Settler colonies like New France are somewhat different as I said and are more inclusive than other colonies depending on the conditions. It's more likely that in an economy not well-suited towards extraction, schools will be built. It still won't be on the same level as the metropole but it can happen. Same with other kinds of industries.
 
Settler colonies are atypical
Settler colonies are literally the root of the term colony. Since when were they, rather than structures like British India, the odd ones out.

Now, the indigenous people of New France were clearly not ruled in the same way as the subjects of the French monarchy in France itself,
The vast majority of indigenous people "in" New France weren't ruled at all.

New France had slaves though? It wasn't a full on plantation slave society like in the caribbean at the time of French rule but there were definitely slaves. If New France is a part of France, than why weren't the slaves there freed? It's because there is still a fundamental distinction between colony and metropole. French law applies selectively.
Actually it's because in 1688 New France got an exemption from the French Free-Soil, and its worth noting that such regional exemptions had previously existed in the south of France as well.
 
Settler colonies are literally the root of the term colony.
Clearly the British Empire wasn't an empire then, since imperium "authority to personally command an army" is literally the root of the term "empire" and Queen Victoria wasn't exactly Boudicca reincarnate.

Since when were they, rather than structures like British India, the odd ones out.
Since when was choosing to exterminate and not exploit the non-white population the "odd ones out"?

Since the point when Europeans in Mexico exploited the native population.

Since the point when Europeans in Peru exploited the native population.

Since the point when Europeans in the Caribbean imported a slave population.

Since the point when Europeans in Brazil imported a slave population.

Since the point when Europeans in most of Africa exploited the native population.

Since the point when Europeans in India exploited the native population.

Since the point when Europeans in Southeast Asia exploited the native population.

Since the point when Europeans in Central Asia exploited the native population.

Since the point when Europeans in China exploited the native population.

"Odd ones out"? Excuse me?

The vast majority of indigenous people "in" New France weren't ruled at all.
My point exactly.
 
Clearly the British Empire wasn't an empire then, since imperium "authority to personally command an army" is literally the root of the term "empire" and Queen Victoria wasn't exactly Boudicca reincarnate.
So colonialism has nothing at all to do with extending jurisdiction over and settling an area your people aren't native to? Nothing? Instances of such shouldn't be termed colonies? I doubt you're making that claim, so I'd like to know what claim you are attempting to make here.

That's quite the strawman you've built there. I don't recall saying that exploitation of natives was in any way contradictory to or rare in colonialism. I said that settler colonies weren't rare exceptions as you insinuated and that instances where a colony was exploited without receiving any settlers were uncommon. Seeing as how half of your wall of links are to settler colonies I feel my position is vindicated.

Also for whatever reason you've decided that a settler colony can only be such if it exterminates the natives, yet there's plenty of examples of colonies that had both significant settlement and had exploited natives.

Actually your tendency to deal in unnecessarily and inaccurately absolute terms seems to be quite the bad habit. I recall our discussion began over your insistence that colonies exclusively extracted resources "for the sole benefit of the heartland". I'd dial back the hyperbole if I were you, it creates an unnecessary barrier to reaching an understanding.

My point exactly.
Your point is that France didn't have the military and social infrastructure to enforce its law over all the territory it lay claim to via "right of discovery"? That's quite the strange claim to make given the context of our discussion, but I won't dispute it.
 
Last edited:
Settler colonies are atypical because they're focused on dispossessing the indigenous people more so than exploiting them. Now, the indigenous people of New France were clearly not ruled in the same way as the subjects of the French monarchy in France itself, while the indigenous people of Egypt and Serbia were ruled in no significantly different way from the subjects of the Ottoman Padishah in the Ottoman heartland of the Aegean region.

Yeah I mean it’s not like kidnapping people’s children, then converting them and forcing them into lifelong military servitude is exploitation at all. Totally not exploitation in any way.
 
Settler colonies are literally the root of the term colony. Since when were they, rather than structures like British India, the odd ones out.


The vast majority of indigenous people "in" New France weren't ruled at all.


Actually it's because in 1688 New France got an exemption from the French Free-Soil, and its worth noting that such regional exemptions had previously existed in the south of France as well.

No it didn't. The 1688 authorization was to allow the importation of african slaves. New France had already been enslaving indigenous people for years before then.

So colonialism has nothing at all to do with extending jurisdiction over and settling an area your people aren't native to? Nothing? Instances of such shouldn't be termed colonies? I doubt you're making that claim, so I'd like to know what claim you are attempting to make here.
<snip>

By that definition basically every state that conquered any area would be creating colonies. In order to conquer an area, you need to forcibly extend jurisdiction over and settle (with soldiers at least) an area.

Yeah I mean it’s not like kidnapping people’s children, then converting them and forcing them into lifelong military servitude is exploitation at all. Totally not exploitation in any way.

Basically all states exploit their populations to some degree. The context here is specifically exploitation in the context of the metropole and the periphery. Oppression of christians in the OE doesn't make the relationship colonial anymore than oppression of protestants in France does. The discrimination against muslims in Spain is not equivalent to discrimination against indigenous people in Spanish America. This really isn't a discussion of who suffered more.
 
No it didn't. The 1688 authorization was to allow the importation of african slaves. New France had already been enslaving indigenous people for years before then.
What it had been doing and what was actually legal were two separate things, as slavery of indigenous peoples wasn't legalized until 1709.

By that definition basically every state that conquered any area would be creating colonies. In order to conquer an area, you need to forcibly extend jurisdiction over and settle (with soldiers at least) an area.
And I would agree with that sentiment. Albeit with the distinction that in many cases the territory in question can be quickly brought into the metropole.
 
What it had been doing and what was actually legal were two separate things, as slavery of indigenous peoples wasn't legalized until 1709.


And I would agree with that sentiment. Albeit with the distinction that in many cases the territory in question can be quickly brought into the metropole.

The Raudot Ordinance explicitly legalized slavery to remove any confusion but slavery wasn't illegal in the colony before then. For example, in 1687, Iroquois people were enslaved on the orders of the French crown itself as part of a plan to get more galley slaves.

I don't really see the utility of that definition as I don't know of any scholars who use it. If a professor says they study colonialism, I can't imagine they would mean they study state conquest in general. I guess it's fine since it's consistent but it's a very unorthodox definition.
 
The Raudot Ordinance explicitly legalized slavery to remove any confusion but slavery wasn't illegal in the colony before then. For example, in 1687, Iroquois people were enslaved on the orders of the French crown itself as part of a plan to get more galley slaves.
Yes, slaves for the Mediterranean galleys. All that proves is that the 1315 declaration that France was free-soil held little real weight on either side of the Atlantic.

I don't really see the utility of that definition as I don't know of any scholars who use it. If a professor says they study colonialism, I can't imagine they would mean they study state conquest in general. I guess it's fine since it's consistent but it's a very unorthodox definition.
Maybe in academia specifically it's unorthodox, but in common parlance it really isn't.
The first result google spits out when asked is
wsqXBsr.png
 
Yes, slaves for the Mediterranean galleys. All that proves is that the 1315 declaration that France was free-soil held little real weight on either side of the Atlantic.


Maybe in academia specifically it's unorthodox, but in common parlance it really isn't.
The first result google spits out when asked is
wsqXBsr.png

Galley slaves were not enslaved or purchased in France itself. They were acquired mainly from either Malta or the italian port of Leghorn and didn't go onto French soil.

I think exploiting a country economically has connotations beyond just taxation but there's probably not much point to arguing this.
 
Whoops wrong page, see page 149.

Oh I see. Okay, I was wrong about slaves not going onto French soil so the iroquois argument is a dead end. Fair enough and my bad. However, I would still draw your attention to page 135 of the book you linked and other pages wherein we have a description of the legal ambiguity (that is, slavery being neither legal nor illegal) of New France slavery before the 1709 ordinance:

Rumor spread quickly in the French Atlantic. Hundreds of people circulated regularly between the Caribbean and the Saint Lawrence in the early eighteenth century, and sharing news was among the first things merchants, officers, and sailors did when they arrived at port. No document survives to show the route the information took, but by 1708 word reached Canada that Caribbean officials had both freed an African slave and executed French traders for selling enslaved Indians. Canadians seem also to have learned of the king’s 1707 declaration making free soil the French kingdom’s official policy. These reports prompted considerable disagreement over the legality of slavery in Canada and its hinterlands, where a small but growing number of colonists had begun investing in slave labor over the previous generation. Unlike the Caribbean, where Indian slavery had been declared illegal and slave raiding made a capital offense, most of the slaves in New France were Indians. According to the colony’s intendant, Jacques Raudot, many began to wonder whether Indians—or anyone—could be legally held as slaves in greater France. Some went so far as to encourage slaves to leave their masters “under the pretext that there are no slaves in France.” Others harbored fugitives. This legal ambiguity had a chilling effect on the value of colonists’ investment in slaves, as it rendered their claim to ownership insecure and frustrated plans to expand the slave trade.1
<snip>
Charged with managing New France’s legal and economic affairs, Raudot would have felt doubly frustrated by the colony’s ambivalent approach to the subject.
<snip>
To protect these investments and to put an end to disputes over slaves’ legal status, Raudot issued his 1709 ordinance, which attempted to shape the nature of slavery and its place in French colonial society.
<snip>
Although we do not know how typical these experiences were, the uncertain legal status of all Indian slaves mitigated the severity of their servitude and created paths to freedom. Their presence as free members of society could also be destabilizing, and it is possible that friendships like the one between the former slave André Rapin dit Skaianis and his enslaved neighbor Joseph contributed to anxiety about the legal status of Indian slaves in the colony. By formalizing the legal status of Indian slaves in 1709, New France’s civil officials sought to make Indian slavery in the colony more like the chattel slavery of the French Caribbean. Colonists would buy and sell slaves with enforceable contracts, and the weight of the colony’s police power would fall on those seeking to interfere with slaveholders’ property rights.77
<snip>
In Louisiana, which would have been a more logical destination for Apache slaves than distant Canada, Indian slavery hovered between being officially discouraged and being illegal, ensuring that it would never thrive in New Orleans or other major slaveholding centers

I think these quotes make it clear that this was not just a case of knowing slavery was illegal but ignoring it because of weak enforcement. Rather, the legal status of slavery itself was in doubt.

In terms of the greater argument of whether New France and metropolitan France had the "same laws", I want to post a quote from the academic article The Legal Structure of Colonial Rule during the French Revolution pages 370 and 371 :

Under the monarchy the colonies were extensions of France in a legal sense but governed by protocols distinct from those applied to domestic territory. The colonies were subject to the Coutume de Paris, the code of private law that applied in Paris and its environs. With the dissolution of mercantile companies in the late seventeenth century, Louis XIV united the Atlantic colonies to the royal domain. The legal and administrative character of the Atlantic colonies nonetheless distinguished them from provinces of the realm. The union of the provinces to the crown hinged on a contractual promise by the monarch to respect their laws, customs, and privileges. The royal intendants, who enlarged the crown's power over provincial taxation, policing, public works, charity, and the levying of troops, negotiated a rich landscape of older institutions and worked with the privileged groups that composed them. In contrast the union of the colonies to the royal domain was not contractual. The crown did not recognize the existence of customs, rights, and privileges that would have diminished its claim to authority over land and men. The officials who presided over colonial administration in the Old Regime - the intendant and the governor - were set apart from officials of the same title on domestic soil by the comparatively unimpeded nature of their authority from an institutional perspective.8 They were also distinct because of the ministry, the navy, that oversaw their conduct

So it's complicated. The colonies are legal extensions of France and subject to Parisian law and yet the legal character and protocols of the colonies are still distinct from the metropole provinces and manifest in an ambiguous and unequal relationship. I'd say one consequence of this is the legal ambiguity of New France slavery shown above.
 
So it's complicated. The colonies are legal extensions of France and subject to Parisian law and yet the legal character and protocols of the colonies are still distinct from the metropole provinces and manifest in an ambiguous and unequal relationship. I'd say one consequence of this is the legal ambiguity of New France slavery shown above.
I'd agree with that.
 

Thomas1195

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.
Well, you can compare population trends of Royal Hungary and Ottoman Hungary as an example.
 
Top