Unified Orthodox identity in the Balkans

Could a Unified Orthodox identity emerge in the Balkans out of the Ottoman
Millet system

What would be the impact of this
 
I'm not sure. Russia tried to promote such an idea, and the Balkan League and pan-Yugoslav nationalism indicate that this was a thing among some, but I still think that "pan-Orthodoxy" would 1) lump together some very diverse groups of people under a "national" identity (Orthodoxy is not a territorialised identity, after all; there can't be an "Orthodoxland" in the same way there can be a Greece or a Serbia), 2) marginalise non-Orthodox groups like Croats, 3) have to contend with Russia, the most influential Orthodox power in the world at this point, whose interests weren't always aligned with those of both Greece and Serbia.
 
lump together some very diverse groups of people under a "national" identity (Orthodoxy is not a territorialised identity, after all; there can't be an "Orthodoxland" in the same way there can be a Greece or a Serbia)
One Balkan nation did something similar. Turkey managed to take Muslim Greeks,Serbs,Bulgarians,Armenians,Circassians, and Turks into a single national identity.

2) marginalise non-Orthodox groups like Croats
That is an issue how ?
 
I'm not sure how you avoid an obsession with Hellenization, but if you could somehow get the Greek Orthodox church to focus on theology and not language I think this is doable. A "Greek" Orthodox Church that encourages the development of Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian, Romanian etc. would go a long way towards creating the kind of sentiment you want.
 
One Balkan nation did something similar. Turkey managed to take Muslim Greeks,Serbs,Bulgarians,Armenians,Circassians, and Turks into a single national identity.

Yes, generations after nationalism became the norm and the millet system was no longer in place. But a big part of that was Turkification and Turkicisation. The Muhacir communities would cease to be their own, and would be subsumed into the larger "Turkish" identity. The creation of a myth of Central-Asian genetic purity and a cult of personality around Kemal Ataturk were a big part of this, as was an interest in Tengriism and other things about Central Asia. Likewise, non-Turkish, non-Turkicised nationalities like Kurds or Arabs (the latter mainly in my home state of Hatay) have been continually marginalised. The nationalism of the Young Turks was not simply a Muslim nationalism -- it was the creation of an Anatolian Turkish national identity, to which other nationalities would be assimilated.
"Turkish" identity may have been constructed to exclude Christianity (which was foreign, Armenian/Greek, etc etc), but it was not necessarily inclusive of all Muslims.

That is an issue how ?

Well, the geographic distinction between Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and Muslim Bosniaks wasn't a thing yet. Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim communities weren't yet separated into different countries with clearly-defined borders. So, a specifically-Orthodox nationalism at the point where the millet system was still in place would exclude a large population of the land that it would claim. What's more, Catholics were a very influential minority in the Balkans, especially in Transylvania and the other Romanian states, where the Catholic rulers of majority-Orthodox principalities were able to play the Habsburgs and Ottomans off each other to retain a degree of autonomy.
 
Last edited:
If the Greeks were more spread out or better in assimilating Bulgarians. Otherwise unity is hard. Not yet impossible but really really hard.
Could the elite be absorbed with the rest of population following suit later on ?

it was the creation of an Anatolian Turkish national identity,
Couldn't one be build around say byzantine empire ?

where the millet system was still in place would exclude a large population of the land that it would claim.
The Orthodox population still made up a large portion of the area

especially in Transylvania and the other Romanian states, where the Catholic rulers of majority-Orthodox principalities were able to play the Habsburgs and Ottomans off each other to retain a degree of autonomy.
Can't the Romanians north of the Danube be excluded
 
I think one thing you need to understand is that the rise of nationalism was frequently anti-clerical and anti-religious. The French Revolution proclaimed "the citizen" to be sovereign, rather than the king, whose sovereignty was divine. Napoleon would popularise the idea that "citizen" was a legal category for political recognition and representation by/for the state, which was a single community.
Contrast this with Ottoman law. Each millet (literally, "nation" in Turkish) was a community governed by its own legal traditions across the Empire, with a designated representative at the Porte (be that the Sheikh al-Islam, the Patriarch, the Apostolic Nuncio, etc). It was a nationality law that was, by nature, not territorialised, because the Ottoman Empire was not territorialised; it was expansionistic, hence pluralistic.

So, no. The millet system is not something which could serve as the basis for a civic nationalism. The Patriarch of Constantinople was the Orthodox millet's "ambassador" to the Porte; he represented the "nation" within the greater "Empire." Bishops and church leaders in Greece, Serbia, etc may (and often did) encourage to partake in a greater Christian struggle against the Muslim enemy, but this did not mean that there was no differences or power struggles between their congregants, or even within the clergy. The institution of the Orthodox Church played an enormous role in the Greek and other Christian independence movements, but don't think this was a conflict between the Rum Millet and the Muslim millet. The Greek Orthodox Church was a major part of Greek nationalism, but the Filiki Etera was still a community of liberal, mostly French-educated intellectuals, many of whom were devoutly anti-clerical.
 
Of course you could It would
also be in keeping with Church doctrine. Orthodoxy should be a person's primary identification. The "Russian " Orthodox church is formed from thousands of ethnic groups
 
This would need to start under the Byzantine Empire, and would need them to successfully assimilate the Bulgars and Vlach into the Greek majority population of the Balkans.
 
Top