How much of the Balkans's backwardness can be blamed on the Ottomans

>
> Preventing Ottomans from emerging serves the main purpose of keeping Balkans christian, while giving more breathing time and for the region to avoid becoming basket case it is today. But really, there's all there is to it: keeping it christian.

I think there is more to it than that. Without Ottoman rule the Balkan countries probably would have been more ethnically homogenous, without having ethnic groups widely scattered across the region as in OTL. The different countries might still go to war against each other now and then, but there wouldn't be as much domestic strife and separatism. With greater stability can come greater economic development, especially given their proximity to wealthy countries nearby.
 
I think there is more to it than that. Without Ottoman rule the Balkan countries probably would have been more ethnically homogenous, without having ethnic groups widely scattered across the region as in OTL. The different countries might still go to war against each other now and then, but there wouldn't be as much domestic strife and separatism. With greater stability can come greater economic development, especially given their proximity to wealthy countries nearby.

Ottomans could have achieved more sustainable stability had they reformed earlier. Even they could have gotten through OTL19th century if only their generals didnt spite each other during war against Russia in 1877. We dont really need much ethnic cultural homogeneity.

Though even they could have pulled it. If Mehmet II had more long term vision or perhaps a bit more religious, he could have promoted Islam instead of restoring the Patriarchate
 
ththWTF.gif


Figures taken from wikipedia:

Polish GDP (PPP): 835
Greek GDP (PPP): 311

Polish GDP (nominal): 488
Greek GDP (nominal): 249

Polish GDP (nominal per capita): 23,567
Greek GDP (nominal per capita): 27,302

Looking at these figures alone in isolation they look like a glorious endorsement of Polish Communism vs the Greek Colonels' Junta :p

Which wikipedia is it from? Whether I look at Polish one or English, figures are pretty much like this:

Greece
GDP (PPP) 2014 estimate
- Total $271.308 billion (51st)
- Per capita $24,574(41st)

GDP (nominal) 2014 estimate
- Total $249.449 billion[5] (44th)
- Per capita $22,594[5] (37th)


Poland
GDP (PPP) 2013 estimate
- Total $813.988 billion(21st)
- Per capita $21,118 (49th)

GDP (nominal) 2013 estimate
- Total $513,934 billion (23rd)
- Per capita $13,334 (54th)

Nominal GDP is much lower (per capita) than Greek, while PPP are pretty much similar- but still worse for Poland. Add to it the fact that Poland got some pretty good (and rich) territories (taken from Germany), losing poorest ones (so called "Poland B") while Greece stayed the same after war. And still- Poland is actually richest country from former eastern bloc (excluding eastern Germany).

Whatsmore, comparison looks even worse here:

http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=67

Aaand- data for 1989 (fall of Communism):

Greece:
1989 $7,482.31
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/greece/gdp-per-capita

Poland:
1989 $2,166


Looks rather bad...
 
I'm going to put those numbers on hold.

And also, I'm not sure if that's even the case, it can dismiss the 5 centuries long Ottoman rule over the place. We really don't need to go before that to avoid Balkans becoming the basket case it is now. Muslim Ottoman Balkan could've done it and reach parity with average western Europe. Muslims and Turks, by 19th century had lived there for more then centuries, qualified to be considered natives. Discrimination towards non-muslims is a legitimate question but at worst, it can be resolved by 1960s world wide civil rights movement. Better yet of course, is to have the empire reform much earlier then it did IOTL. Even IOTL the Serbians initially revolted against the local janissaries in the name of the sultan. Had the central government met their demands, their loyalty could've been kept. The key is to avoid western powers prying to Ottoman internal affairs and turning the christian population into trojan horse. It means to require an effective Ottoman government to maintain order and economy. Ottomans really missed the Enlightenment Train, and with the right decisions at the right time, they could've caught it on time.

The thing with the 19th century Ottoman Empire is that reform is never easy, even in a much more receptive environment. Local administrative structures and Muslim elites away from the capital resisted the Tanzimat tooth and nail, and even the central government wasn't always able to keep a consistent policy on reforms and squashing the local strongmen.

The Serbian revolt is a good example of this kind of wishy-washy policy and harmful inaction - the janissaries killed the benevolent, legitimately appointed Wali and set up a bandit regime in central Serbia, but they made a public show of loyalty to the sultan, sent a few veiled threats and promises, and were forgiven and legitimized by a firman in 1802. Instead of protecting its subjects from an unashamedly criminal and oppressive takeover, the state put its head in the sand and hoped nothing really bad happens. The First Serbian Uprising was originally planned as a joint conspiracy of Serbs and local Muslims who were friends with the murdered Wali, but the Empire didn't provide any aid even to Dervish Shinikzade and the Muslim faction of the conspirators, so the Serbs were left to defend themselves on their own and launched an unassisted uprising in 1804 that, unsurprisingly, soon evolved into a struggle for independence.

Maybe we don't need to go back to the Ottoman invasion to "fix" the Balkans, but it's at least as viable a solution as reforming the Empire.
 
The thing with the 19th century Ottoman Empire is that reform is never easy, even in a much more receptive environment. Local administrative structures and Muslim elites away from the capital resisted the Tanzimat tooth and nail, and even the central government wasn't always able to keep a consistent policy on reforms and squashing the local strongmen.

The Serbian revolt is a good example of this kind of wishy-washy policy and harmful inaction - the janissaries killed the benevolent, legitimately appointed Wali and set up a bandit regime in central Serbia, but they made a public show of loyalty to the sultan, sent a few veiled threats and promises, and were forgiven and legitimized by a firman in 1802. Instead of protecting its subjects from an unashamedly criminal and oppressive takeover, the state put its head in the sand and hoped nothing really bad happens. The First Serbian Uprising was originally planned as a joint conspiracy of Serbs and local Muslims who were friends with the murdered Wali, but the Empire didn't provide any aid even to Dervish Shinikzade and the Muslim faction of the conspirators, so the Serbs were left to defend themselves on their own and launched an unassisted uprising in 1804 that, unsurprisingly, soon evolved into a struggle for independence.

Maybe we don't need to go back to the Ottoman invasion to "fix" the Balkans, but it's at least as viable a solution as reforming the Empire.

People really underestimated the potential of later Ottoman Empire. In 1877 War, they were ahead of Russians in almost every way. They got better weaponry, better tactics, better skilled soldiers, better doctrine, etc. What they lacked were manpool reserve that Russia has and united leadership, which was what killed them. The only man respected by the entire army got assassinated before the war and it led to Ottoman generals vying among themselves to fill the vacuum. All it took for them to win was a bit of better luck. It does shows that Ottoman had quite a bit of institutional problem. They were late to reform, and the then modern army was still institutionally young even with all the hardened veterans, and somewhat unruly. But the straw that broke the camel's back came out of nowhere. Easily avoidable. That's all they needed : avoid bizzare bad luck like that until they can shake off capitulations.

I think the root cause to current Balkan backwardness is indeed the Ottomans reforming late, which can be attributed to the late abolition of Janissaries. It was not the dead sentence to Ottoman State but it did rendered it vulnerable to little unfortunate incidents that can screw everything up. They should've reformed earlier. When you think about it it's completely by chance that they continued to fail to disband Jannisaries for 2 centuries straight until the Auspicious Incident. All they needed was a gutsy Sultan that had the chance Mahmud II eventually got to purge them. Selim III had the chance but he was too restraint.

They indeed contained the development of their christian subjects, but it won't matter had they not lost. That's what they should've done, not losing. If they had persisted, once capitulations are gone you can see secularization will steadily accelerate since there'll no more barrier to economic growth nor reason to fear European encroachment to sovereignty. The Balkans can become developed while dominated by muslim plurality.

If we really need demographic homogenity(and I believe we don't), Ottomans could've done it too. Mehmed II set the course by restoring the Patriarchate. Just have him not to. 19th century Balkans will become solidly muslim. But I value it as much as I do No Ottomans scenario, since it serves the same basic purpose.
 
Last edited:
How does one quantify "much weaker and less developed" or "backwardness"? You lot can keep going back and forth over the potentials of the Tanzimat, or a related reform package and not answer these rather broad statements. I wouldn't know where to find economic data on the Balkans, certainly not Wikipedia, but the little I know on the area was that it was the heartland of the Byzantines and Ottomans. Surely that means something significant as compared to the hinterlands of the Arabian Peninsula, the Balkans figured in quite importantly in the economic strength of the Empires.
 
How does one quantify "much weaker and less developed" or "backwardness"? You lot can keep going back and forth over the potentials of the Tanzimat, or a related reform package and not answer these rather broad statements. I wouldn't know where to find economic data on the Balkans, certainly not Wikipedia, but the little I know on the area was that it was the heartland of the Byzantines and Ottomans. Surely that means something significant as compared to the hinterlands of the Arabian Peninsula, the Balkans figured in quite importantly in the economic strength of the Empires.

I suppose I'm thinking of a few things. First, you don't see a Greek printing press until the 1620s, and that fizzles. Then you don't see them really taking off until the 18th century. Meanwhile, the Italians were printing Greek classical texts of their own since teh 15th century. Would a Byzantine state have been as opposed to printing as, say, the Ottomans? I think no.

Also, unlike the Russians (who are perhaps not the best analogy for surviving Balkan states), you don't really see an interest in Europe until the 18th century, if then.
 
They did contained the christians and reformed rather late, rendering it vulnerable to European incursion to its economy and sovereignty. But in the end its the great powers who opened the can of worms. The Ottomans didnt collapse on themselves, they were partitioned from outside. Even in 19th century theres still a chance for them to retain the Balkans and make it a much more developed region by today. But somehow, muslim Ottomans can not be consideted native to the region. Theyve lived there for centuries, made a large part of local population and had been operating the place as the powerbase of their empire. They were natives. Its not entirely fair, but its different from ruling a faraway country with population much larger then your own, especially since they couldve improved down the road, more so then a Kemalist country can ever be.
 
Last edited:
Top