Ottoman Balkans Population Map

[Valdemar II]

That was no longer the case in the 19th c. I don't think a book written in 1879 is a very reliable source, do you? I've read that, and let's just say Campbell is not exactly pro-Ottoman. Or remotely neutral.

There were secular courts in operation where Christian testimony was taken the same as anyone else's. The religious courts - and all the faiths had them - were gradually restricted to family matters.

In a system where Muslims were predominant in administration, there is no doubt that there were abuses committed, but not particularly directed at Christians - more like equal opportunity exploitation. Most Europeans didn't give a rat's ass what happened to Muslims, though. The revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for instance, wasn't sectarian, it was a general revolt against tax policy.

And in any case, I would rather be a Christian under Ottoman rule than a Muslim under British rule! There were Christian ministers and parliamentarians in the Ottoman government - no Muslims in the British, or any other European gov't - I think we have a double standard.

Of course the picture wasn't "all sunny" - but was it anywhere? This is only a few years after the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune...

I doubt that would have been the case if Britain had a large Muslim minority on British isle, it's a little like if I complained about the lack of Danes in the Ottoman admistration, many European countries also had Jews or former Jews in their admistration.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

I doubt that would have been the case if Britain had a large Muslim minority on British isle, it's a little like if I complained about the lack of Danes in the Ottoman admistration, many European countries also had Jews or former Jews in their admistration.

That statement reeks of an accute Ottoman-skepticism, I see...

Well, the reality that it wasn't like that, isn't it ?

If the British isle had a large Muslim minority among their native populations, sure the things would've been different there but mind you, how would had it happened ?

You're talking rubbish by bringing the completely nonsensical unrelated issue into this discussion about the lack of Danes in Ottoman administration. You don't know ANYTHING about Ottoman Empire compared to Pasha !! Instead of being a intensively inconsistent Anti-Ottoman ranter, why don't you be a real man and ask REAL questions ?!

And about related Jewish issue, surely you know Ottomans brought into the end the blood libel against the Jews in their empire while Europeans were still thinking that laughing at the Jews for no apparent reason is a wise things. And by the way, who brought the blood libel BACK into the Empire during 19th century ?

I want to learn real history here.... I don't want to see this kind of trolling again !

 

[Wozza]

I want to learn real history here.... I don't want to see this kind of trolling again !

You know some people have a sixth sense - of proportion.

 

[Valdemar II]

That statement reeks of an accute Ottoman-skepticism, I see...

Well, the reality that it wasn't like that, isn't it ?

If the British isle had a large Muslim minority among their native populations, sure the things would've been different there but mind you, how would had it happened ?

You're talking rubbish by bringing the completely nonsensical unrelated issue into this discussion about the lack of Danes in Ottoman administration. You don't know ANYTHING about Ottoman Empire compared to Pasha !! Instead of being a intensively inconsistent Anti-Ottoman ranter, why don't you be a real man and ask REAL questions ?!

And about related Jewish issue, surely you know Ottomans brought into the end the blood libel against the Jews in their empire while Europeans were still thinking that laughing at the Jews for no apparent reason is a wise things. And by the way, who brought the blood libel BACK into the Empire during 19th century ?

I want to learn real history here.... I don't want to see this kind of trolling again !

Reported..

 

[Ridwan Asher]

You know some people have a sixth sense - of proportion.

Well, yeah ! The first time I unleash my true rage of hatred for the overwhelming Ottoman-skepticism since I was first came to the board Must be a good sign indeed, heh

Anyway, the issue and analogy Valdemar II brought to us previously was a complete nonsense, completely unrelated ! Today isn't a good day for me and I got a mood problem here... still though, I can't imagine how he could actually said something like that! If he doesn't like OE and he wants to ignore everything good OE has done, I don't think it'd be any means for him to show it here except trolling if he doesn't ask it properly like he really wants yo discuss something, instead saying something like "why do you always something good about that stupid 3V0L Caliphate, Pasha ? They system@@@*7c^lly killed the Armenians, opOPOPpress the poor Greeks and Christians and was a sick medi#v)l pocket in the middle of modernity!! Why do you keep saying it was wrong ????", and listen to Pasha's answer for his question, truly, and then accept the proves Pasha showed him or respectfully reject the things that Pasha may had brought it not so clearly like a gentleman. Is it THAT hard ??? I've seen that it is for some particular kinds of people though... but if Valdemar II isn't such kind of guy, I demand him to explain it himself and prove me wrong !!

Note that I really hope that I was wrong about you, Valdemar II ! You can hate anything you want... I just want to make sure that you're really quoting Pasha's statement for something, not because this is a thread about pro-Turkish crap and thus deserved to be teased.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

Reported..

Please, I just want you to explain it to me and prove me wrong. If I was wrong about you, I'll be willing to make a formal apology.

If I'm doing a very bad thing here, then this will be the last time I'm doing it and stay calm from now on no matter what.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I doubt that would have been the case if Britain had a large Muslim minority on British isle, it's a little like if I complained about the lack of Danes in the Ottoman admistration, many European countries also had Jews or former Jews in their admistration.

Really? How about Ireland? Were there lots of Catholics in high position? Many Jews? How many? Many countries didn't even emancipate their Jews until around this time - Germany for instance in 1871. Russia still had not.

In fact, the only exception I can think of is Disraeli, who was a former-Jew.

I don't see how it's comparable to Danes in the Ottoman administration - the Ottomans didn't have any Danish subjects. But I'll note that many Poles and Hungarians fleeing tyranny after the 1848 revolutions fled to the Ottoman Empire and served in high offices.

 

[Wozza]

Really? How about Ireland? Were there lots of Catholics in high position? Many Jews? How many? Many countries didn't even emancipate their Jews until around this time - Germany for instance in 1871. Russia still had not.

In fact, the only exception I can think of is Disraeli, who was a former-Jew.

I don't see how it's comparable to Danes in the Ottoman administration - the Ottomans didn't have any Danish subjects. But I'll note that many Poles and Hungarians fleeing tyranny after the 1848 revolutions fled to the Ottoman Empire and served in high offices.

There is certainly a case to be made for there being a difference between colonial rule and rule in what was meant to be a single metropolis.
Considering that Britain had its first Asian MP (not Muslim, Zoroastrian I think) in 1892 the case that Muslims in Britain itself COULD have been in a good position seems sound. Although it depends a lot on the cirucmstances of that very very hypothetical minority.

Considering that British ruled Egypt is often painted as an oasis of intellectual freedom, and that the Ottomans were executing Arab nationalist leaders right up until the first world war one might not want to paint too rosy a picture. As one should not necessarily with British ruled Ireland in the late nineteenth century.

 

[Valdemar II]

Really? How about Ireland? Were there lots of Catholics in high position? Many Jews? How many? Many countries didn't even emancipate their Jews until around this time - Germany for instance in 1871. Russia still had not..

Britains treatment of Catholics are a good point. But Britain was willing to treat other religious minorities differenly from the Catholic, because they didn't fear a takeover from these.

In fact, the only exception I can think of is Disraeli, who was a former-Jew..

I thought of other European countries mostly German states while the Jews wasn't emancipated and often faced discrimination, some of them was part of the central adminstration in different state. There was a tendens to that these converted later on, so they could be ennobled, I think it was rather uncommon outside Germany and Poland thanks to the lower Jewish population.

I don't see how it's comparable to Danes in the Ottoman administration - the Ottomans didn't have any Danish subjects.

But Britain didn't have any Muslims in Britain either (like Danes in the Ottoman empire), while there was Muslim in the colonies, they was not choosed by simple fact that they lived in a provinsial backwater, while the Christians in the Ottoman empire lived in the middle of the Empires powercenter

But I'll note that many Poles and Hungarians fleeing tyranny after the 1848 revolutions fled to the Ottoman Empire and served in high offices.

Which isn't surprising, that the Ottoman hired well educated foreigners, while they was modernising the country, quite intelligent to choose someones who couldn't return to their homelands and that way would have so much more loyalty to their new homeland.

 

[Faeelin]

I have a question. Is there any way to figure out how reliable the sources you drew on are? Who, frex, sponsored the 19th century European ethnographic studies?

Anyway, I'm surprised; I would've thought there would be more Greeks in Western Anatolia.

 

[Valdemar II]

I have a question. Is there any way to figure out how reliable the sources you drew on are? Who, frex, sponsored the 19th century European ethnographic studies?

Anyway, I'm surprised; I would've thought there would be more Greeks in Western Anatolia.

It has earlier been mentioned that the Greek in Anatolia was largely decendent from a wave of Greek immigrants for the Ionian Sea around the late 19 century, because of higher Greek birthrate at the time.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Yes, that's correct. The Greek birthrate in the Islands was a bit higher than elsewhere, but they were unable to support a large population and emmigrated to Anatolia.

There were towns where they formed a majority, but no subprovince where they were a majority.

This study concentrates on Europe , but I could so one for Asia Minor, but it would be kind of boring.

Regarding Faeelin's question, the most reliable source with regard to numbers is the Ottoman census, which was done for internal purposes - this is pretty good for determining at least the proportions between religious groups.

Western ethnographic studies are often biased and limited, so they're not great for numbers, but they do provide clues about ethnicities within religious groups that the Ottomans didn't track.

I used these primarily in Epirus, where Othodox Christians were split between Greeks, Albanians, and Vlachs. Labelling these areas "Greek Majority" was unsatisfying as it didn't reflect reality, which was that the Western part in particular was Albanian Christian.

It has earlier been mentioned that the Greek in Anatolia was largely decendent from a wave of Greek immigrants for the Ionian Sea around the late 19 century, because of higher Greek birthrate at the time.

 

[Oddball]

Here is a map of the population of the Ottoman Balkans by subprovince that I painstakingly assembled, which I think is pretty interesting, and opens a lot of AH channels as well. I did this as research for a TL that I'm working on with a different outcome of the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78 and Treaty of Berlin (1878).

Im bumping this with a statement of admiration of your work AHP


As a follow up question Im bevildered about the Bulgarians (as usual). I never seem to get a grasp of them. What and who were/are they? Turks, Slavs, Muslims, orthodox. All of it probably

What I realy would like to see Abdul, is a essay from you about the Bulgarians wich explains their history and road to independence and status as a seperate nationality

 

[Oddball]

It has earlier been mentioned that the Greek in Anatolia was largely decendent from a wave of Greek immigrants for the Ionian Sea around the late 19 century, because of higher Greek birthrate at the time.

Interesting! I did not know that.

IMHO that is a pretty obvious sign of that the Ottoman Empire truly was welcoming to different religous and national groups

Could they have gone elswere, if the Ottoman E had closed the door?

 

[corourke]

Great map! Unfortunately, the bisection of the Balkans by this more western Bulgaria doesn't look too good for the Ottomans. How can they get more people to convert?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That's really nonsense. The British stifled debate in Egypt and literacy actually fell under their rule. Only a contemporary propagandist would call it an oasis of intellectual freedom. The Ottomans were not executing Arab nationalists right up to WWI. Can you provide a list? Where do you people get this stuff? Prior to the war there wasn't really even Arab nationalism. Even DURING the war far fewer Arab nationalists were executed than Irish nationalists.

I don't see how the election of one Zoroastrian makes an assumption Muslims in Britain would have been in a good position "sound". That the British didn't even allow Muslims to be officials in Indian administration ought to be the basis for a quite different assumption.

There is certainly a case to be made for there being a difference between colonial rule and rule in what was meant to be a single metropolis.
Considering that Britain had its first Asian MP (not Muslim, Zoroastrian I think) in 1892 the case that Muslims in Britain itself COULD have been in a good position seems sound. Although it depends a lot on the cirucmstances of that very very hypothetical minority.

Considering that British ruled Egypt is often painted as an oasis of intellectual freedom, and that the Ottomans were executing Arab nationalist leaders right up until the first world war one might not want to paint too rosy a picture. As one should not necessarily with British ruled Ireland in the late nineteenth century.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Britains treatment of Catholics are a good point. But Britain was willing to treat other religious minorities differenly from the Catholic, because they didn't fear a takeover from these.

But this is exactly the point. The Ottomans gave ministries and representation to minorities that were large and strong enough to take over, at least portions of the empire (and eventually did!). They took seriously the move to total equality of subjects from 1839 (The Gulhane Rescript).

And really, what religious minorities were there in Britain besides Catholics? Nothing but teeny groups that you could count on your hands.

 

[Othniel]

And really, what religious minorities were there in Britain besides Catholics? Nothing but teeny groups that you could count on your hands.

Calvinists, Methodist, Baptists, and Dissentors all of these were religious minorities compared to the Church of England.

 

[Valdemar II]

But this is exactly the point. The Ottomans gave ministries and representation to minorities that were large and strong enough to take over, at least portions of the empire (and eventually did!). They took seriously the move to total equality of subjects from 1839 (The Gulhane Rescript).

And really, what religious minorities were there in Britain besides Catholics? Nothing but teeny groups that you could count on your hands.

The ottoman risk their minorities rebelled and took over a European province or two, the British risked the Catholics would take over the entire country and decapitate the King and most of the elite, it gives another level of Paranoia.

Presbytarians and Methodists was both rather large.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Great map! Unfortunately, the bisection of the Balkans by this more western Bulgaria doesn't look too good for the Ottomans. How can they get more people to convert?

Well, don't forget that the color-coding doesn't mean that there are no other groups than the predominant one - where possible I've included the % Muslim by subprovince - mostly in Bulgaria and Bosnia. I doubt you'll see many convert, but Christians were more apt to emmigrate than Muslims, so time would have increased the Muslim percentage.

Bulgarians + Macedonians constituted about a fourth of the Balkan population - while I agree that the creation of an independent Bulgaria more or less dooms the Ottoman position in the Balkans, I don't think that necessarily had to happen. If the Bulgarians lived in a homogeneous block it would likely be inevitable, but that wasn't the case.