Why the Balkans was never Turkified

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

First, let's get clear on definitions. I think the intial poster is really referring to "Islamification", not "Turkification", since the Ottomans had no particular identity as "Turks".

Regarding the question of blame for crimes against humanity, I don't think there's really a comparison between the 15th c, when warfare was a more or less permanent state everywhere, and the late 19th c, when we had supposedly evolved civilized rules of conduct.

Even taking that into consideration, the Ottomans were invited into Europe by the Byzantines, and while they certianly expanded, a very large proportion of Balkan conquests were defensive annexations in response to Christian "Crusades" - and in any case, the Ottomans had no intention of exterminating subject peoples and their cultures. In the 19th c, the goal of the Balkan powers and their Great Power sponsors was to utterly exterminate the Muslims of the Balkans, which is entirely more serious a matter from a moral perspective, both due to intent, and the context of the time.

I'm not sure I agree that this has an impact on Turkey's attitude toward human rights, but it does make them incredibly hostile to any whiff of separatism - as, in Ottoman/Turkish history, separatism has always been accompanied by the total destruction of the Muslim/Turkish population in territories lost. I think there is recognition that Turkey needs to improve its human rights performance, and by all measures they have made and are making enormous progress in that regard - but this issue isn't related to the past, except insofar as Turks have the aforementioned paranoia - justified - about separatism. Human rights today are a universal value, and the past is no excuse for behavior today.

With regard to the main question, the reasons are manifold:

1. The population of the Balkans was largely Islamified. In 1876 it was around 43% Muslim, and in earlier times was probably even more so. Superior security in the 16th c led to an inflow of Christian South Slavs, and in the 17th & 18th c, Christian population growth was higher due to massacres of Muslims by invading Russian and Hapsburg armies and by the death toll of Muslims who had to serve in the military, and the lesser wealth available to Muslims for this same reason - Christians were able to devote their entire energy to economic pursuits. After the Berlin settlement in 1878, the remaining Ottoman Balkan territory has a Muslim majority, which actually grew as Christians were more likely to emmigrate to the New World than Muslims, and this trend accelerated dramatically after the Young Turk revolution, which instituted universal conscription. The Christians demanded equality, but didn't really want it. The Tanzimat era reforms beginning in 1839 actually institutionally advantaged Christians over Muslims in most regards, and in addition the Christians had Great Power sponsors to reinforce these advantages.

2. Anatolia was conquered five centures earlier, and its population more sparse and easily assimilated. Even so, by WWI the population was probably abou 20% Christian, roughly evenly split between Armenians and Greeks. But if the Balkans had remained Ottoman, the percentage Muslim would certainly have increased.

3. Anatolia was conquered outside the context of the Byzantine Empire - the Balkans were largely subjected to regular Ottoman administration within the Byzantine context, by which I mean with the Patriarchate as an Ottoman governmental "department". This limited conversion somewhat.

Taxation really had nothing to do with anything, except that in earlier periods, people were somewhat more likely to covert to Islam as the taxes were lower, but this only made sense before conscription. After conscription was adopted, it made way more financial sense to pay the military exemption tax and avoid service, so there was no impetus to convert. Remember that the amount of taxes that could be levied on Christians was limited by Islamic law too - and in the later period, taxes were equal for everyone, except that the military exemption tax was impossibly high for Muslims, whereas Christian businessmen could adopt foreign citizenship and avoid virtually all taxation.

 

[danielbd]

I have to agree with a lot of what you said but:

Requesting help from an Anatolian principality in a dynastic struggle, and using them mostly as merceneries (albeit not paying them with cash) to fend off rival factions, is not the same thing as inviting the Ottomans to establish a Muslim empire over the Balkan peninsula and destroying every political entity in it.

How were all conquests "defensive actions"? Wasn't the raison d'être of the Ottoman Gazi state to wage war on the infidel? A lot of wars were provoked by the Christians but that doesn't mean they would not wage wars of agression without being attacked first.

Also, you make it sound like Christians were richer than Muslims. Weren't ALL landowners Muslim? Afaik the Christians had to pay a rent for every land that they used (from villages to mountains), to the Sultan directly or to the Timariots? The Greek merchants represented only a very small part of the population, how about the Serbs,Vlachs and Christian Albanians that had a couple of pigs and sheep as their fortune. Or how wealthy could the Bulgarians get since all they did was work the field all day long? (paying relatively reasonable taxes i must admit but how prosperous could they have become...). If the Christians were so rich than why were Belgrade, Sarajevo and other large provincial towns inhabited mostly by Muslims?

And about Christians not wanting to be equal... Yeah, they liked not owning land, or having to dismount when they encountered a Muslim, or to wear specific clothing, or not carring weapons, or being executed outright for the killing of a Muslim, or having a Muslim only pay a fine to the family of the Christian he had killed, or the general Muslim superiority complex as well as religious restrictions that did exist to an extent.

Also after years of anarchy throughout the balkans that saw all kinds of local ayans, jannisaries, tribal leaders, irregular troops (Tepedelenli, Pasvanoglu, the dahi of Serbia) etc abuse the population and disregard the law, maybe they had lost faith in the Empire.

Don't get me wrong, the Ottoman Empire was unbelievably tolerant and advanced for its time, but come on.....

 

[Keenir]

Requesting help from an Anatolian principality in a dynastic struggle, and using them mostly as merceneries (albeit not paying them with cash) to fend off rival factions, is not the same thing as inviting the Ottomans to establish a Muslim empire over the Balkan peninsula and destroying every political entity in it.

and this is different from what England did?

How were all conquests "defensive actions"? Wasn't the raison d'être of the Ottoman Gazi state to wage war on the infidel?

...thus neatly explaining why all the government posts in the Ottoman State were filled with Greek and Armenian Christians.

btw, you might want to look up "gazi". I don't think it means what you think it does.

And about Christians not wanting to be equal... Yeah, they liked not owning land, or having to dismount when they encountered a Muslim, or to wear specific clothing, or not carring weapons, or being executed outright for the killing of a Muslim,

and how is that different from the state of affairs for minority Muslims in the Ottoman Empire?

or having a Muslim only pay a fine to the family of the Christian he had killed, or the general Muslim superiority complex as well as religious restrictions that did exist to an extent.

"general Muslim superiority complex"??

you do know "Muslim" isn't a monolithic entity, even just in the Ottoman Empire - right?

 

[danielbd]

and this is different from what England did?

Sorry, i don't get it.

...thus neatly explaining why all the government posts in the Ottoman State were filled with Greek and Armenian Christians.

What all government posts? How many Christians were Vezirs, Grandvezirs, beylerbeys, Jannisary agas, muftis ?? Excluding some early naval officers and dragomans... and some harem women , what were the other Christian government posts or important functions?
Or do you count new converts to islam as being Christian?

btw, you might want to look up "gazi". I don't think it means what you think it does.

Ghazi:Ottoman holy warrior, Ottoman border warrior, warrior of the faith
Or was it because i misspelled it?

and how is that different from the state of affairs for minority Muslims in the Ottoman Empire?

By minority Muslims do you mean Shia and smaller sects?

"general Muslim superiority complex"??

you do know "Muslim" isn't a monolithic entity, even just in the Ottoman Empire - right?

I am not talking about today's Muslims (well the large majority at least) but about Muslims living in an Islamic state at that time. To deny that they didn't look down on Christians would be stating a lie. Like Christians looking down on Muslims if they had lived in a Christian state (e.g. Russia)
The point is that in a multicultural state, especially at that time the dominant culture did look down on minorities, in this case Christians. Also holy books don't exactly contradict this,

 

[Keenir]

Sorry, i don't get it.

you just described how England took over the British Isles.

What all government posts? How many Christians were Vezirs, Grandvezirs, beylerbeys, Jannisary agas, muftis ??

that's like asking "how many Muslims are cardinals?" you use Muslim-specific titles, and pretend that those were the only ones.

though the Balkans were full of Orthodox Christian beylerbeys and princes.

Excluding some early naval officers and dragomans... and some harem women , what were the other Christian government posts or important functions?

more than 90% of the offices of the treasury, the foreign office, (among others) were entirely Christian.

Ghazi:Ottoman holy warrior, Ottoman border warrior, warrior of the faith

and how does it remain a ghazi state when the entire nation is the state?

I am not talking about today's Muslims (well the large majority at least) but about Muslims living in an Islamic state at that time. To deny that they didn't look down on Christians would be stating a lie. Like Christians looking down on Muslims if they had lived in a Christian state (e.g. Russia)
The point is that in a multicultural state, especially at that time the dominant culture did look down on minorities, in this case Christians. Also holy books don't exactly contradict this,

in the Ottoman Empire, it was safer to be a Christian, than it was to be an Alawi.

heck, in any Muslim empire, that was true.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I have to agree with a lot of what you said but:

Requesting help from an Anatolian principality in a dynastic struggle, and using them mostly as merceneries (albeit not paying them with cash) to fend off rival factions, is not the same thing as inviting the Ottomans to establish a Muslim empire over the Balkan peninsula and destroying every political entity in it.

How were all conquests "defensive actions"? Wasn't the raison d'être of the Ottoman Gazi state to wage war on the infidel? A lot of wars were provoked by the Christians but that doesn't mean they would not wage wars of agression without being attacked first.

Also, you make it sound like Christians were richer than Muslims. Weren't ALL landowners Muslim? Afaik the Christians had to pay a rent for every land that they used (from villages to mountains), to the Sultan directly or to the Timariots? The Greek merchants represented only a very small part of the population, how about the Serbs,Vlachs and Christian Albanians that had a couple of pigs and sheep as their fortune. Or how wealthy could the Bulgarians get since all they did was work the field all day long? (paying relatively reasonable taxes i must admit but how prosperous could they have become...). If the Christians were so rich than why were Belgrade, Sarajevo and other large provincial towns inhabited mostly by Muslims?

And about Christians not wanting to be equal... Yeah, they liked not owning land, or having to dismount when they encountered a Muslim, or to wear specific clothing, or not carring weapons, or being executed outright for the killing of a Muslim, or having a Muslim only pay a fine to the family of the Christian he had killed, or the general Muslim superiority complex as well as religious restrictions that did exist to an extent.

Also after years of anarchy throughout the balkans that saw all kinds of local ayans, jannisaries, tribal leaders, irregular troops (Tepedelenli, Pasvanoglu, the dahi of Serbia) etc abuse the population and disregard the law, maybe they had lost faith in the Empire.

Don't get me wrong, the Ottoman Empire was unbelievably tolerant and advanced for its time, but come on.....

You're referring to very distant eras. It's interesting that people tend to compare the Ottomans in the 16th c with Europe today when it comes to moral questions. In the 15th-16th c, Europe was embroiled in Inquisitions, expelling and massacring Jews, exterminating minorities, and endless warfare over what can only be characterized as minor doctinal issues - at the same time, the Ottomans, while not perfect, were a virtual paragon of tolerance. Yes, Christians were legally disadvantaged vs Muslims, but that is in comparison to Europe, where Muslims were not allowed to live at all.

I did not say that ALL conquests were defensive actions - but people tend to take a "computer game" view of history in retrospect, as if Sultans were sitting at a terminal planning their EUIII turns. In the case of the Ottomans, there were exceptions like Mehmed II, who self-consciously wanted to recreate the Roman Empire in his Islamic image, but for the most part, Ottoman rulers were like anyone else, trying to keep their state afloat and increase its chances for survival. Once Adrianople was made the capital and the center of gravity of the empire, it wasn't really possible to have hostile powerful states like Bulgaria and Serbia immediately adjacent, so they were forced into vassalage, and when they betrayed their suzerain, were directly annexed.

The Ottoman state's purpose was not to wage war on the infidel as Gazis - that is just pure myth created later. In fact, the situation was rather complex, and a lot of territorial acquisition happening the way it had since Manzikert - largely unintended and opportunistic. One of the problems the Seljuks and Ottomans had were barely controlled Turcoman tribesmen that lived off plunder, and had little if any religious motivation for anything. They tended to be pushed to the frontiers by the state, where they could do the lease harm to the empire, with the added benefit of keeping neighbors off-balance. Take as another example the British Empire, which was created largely by accident - yet still ended up with a quarter of the planet. You'd be hard-pressed to find any British statesmen out to conquer the world - it just happened as British interests were defended, with the government often operating under false information provided by local personnel with their own interests - for example, Egypt.

As for your point about Christian wealth, I specifically referred to the Tanzimat era beginning in 1839. But even before that, it is absolutely not true that all landowners were Muslim. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it sounds a little "jihad-watchy". You seem to be referring to the Middle Ages and ignoring the evolution of the empire into the modern era. For instance, although in earlier periods there were clothing regulations (as there were in Europe as well), the applied to everyone, including Muslims, and were totally abolished in the 1830s when the fez was adopted as the universal headgear for all Ottomans and Western dress encouraged. As of 1839 all Ottoman subjectes were legally equal (albeit it took longer to make this true in practice). The Christian millets actually fought against this as they wanted to enjoy the benefits of their separate millets without having to bear the burden of military service.

As for the Bulgarians, Bulgaria was undergoing an enormous economic boom by the 1870s with rapidly developing proto-industry. You make it sound like Christian peasants were all led around in chains tilling fields for their Muslim overlords who rode them with whips like beasts of burden.

I would recommend, if you're interested in economic history, The Balkan Economies, c. 1800-1914 by Michael Pailaret. The general consensus of economic historians is that the late empire was actually quite prosperous economically and the Balkan states, once independent, declined and became backwaters.

BTW, while urban centers often had large Muslim populations, none of the cities you mention were population "almost entirely" by Muslims. The reasons are complicated, but part of this was the administrative cadre and garrison, plus the presence of landowners, religious insitutions, and schools, which generated demand for goods, in turn required support services.

Your comment about the Muslim superiority complex to me reflects Victorian thinking, in a rather hypocritical way. Was the British Empire not animated by the certainty of superiority? Did the English consider Scots to be their equals? How about the Irish? And let's not forget the Indian and African subjects, none of which had any access whatsoever to office, whereas Christians served as ministers in the Ottoman state.

Or how about the USA? We might note that the natives are still confined to reservations - that is, the ones that survived centuries of extermination. There is definitely a double-standard that is applied to Muslim states, particularly the Ottomans, who at least strove to achieve equality for all subjects.

 

[Faeelin]

I did not say that ALL conquests were defensive actions - but people tend to take a "computer game" view of history in retrospect, as if Sultans were sitting at a terminal planning their EUIII turns.

Since EUIII doesn't have turns, I can't take the rest of this seriously.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

What all government posts? How many Christians were Vezirs, Grandvezirs, beylerbeys, Jannisary agas, muftis ?? Excluding some early naval officers and dragomans... and some harem women , what were the other Christian government posts or important functions?
Or do you count new converts to islam as being Christian?

Again, you're talking about the Middle Ages, not the modern era. How many English officials were Irish in the 1500s? How many Catholics after the Reformation?

In the 19th and 20th c, there were scores of Ottoman Christian ministers. And I mean Ministers, as in Finance Minister, Foreign Minister, etc. There were also Christian provincial governors, Christian parliamentarians, Christian representatives in provincial legislatures, Christian ambassadors, Christian military officers, etc.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Since EUIII doesn't have turns, I can't take the rest of this seriously.

Hah hah. You know what I mean. And in effect it does, since you end up spending most of your time playing with it on pause.

 

[danielbd]

you just described how England took over the British Isles.

Maybe i did but what is the relevance? Did i compare the Ottomans to England? No. Did i judge them and said that one is better than the other? No. I was merely saying that the Ottomans weren't invited to rule the Balkans. They were invited to fulfil a military role, receive their "payment" and move on.

that's like asking "how many Muslims are cardinals?" you use Muslim-specific titles, and pretend that those were the only ones.

though the Balkans were full of Orthodox Christian beylerbeys and princes.

more than 90% of the offices of the treasury, the foreign office, (among others) were entirely Christian.

You said that most administrative offices were held by Christian, and i gave you the most important offices in the state. The offices that held the real power of the state's mechanism. I may have exagerated yes but so have you in your first statement.

and how does it remain a ghazi state when the entire nation is the state?

I was reffering to early beginings of the Ottomans, when they were all they did was raid and occupy Christian settlements without provocation, to show that, at least at the start, the Turks did wage mostly wars of agression.

in the Ottoman Empire, it was safer to be a Christian, than it was to be an Alawi.

heck, in any Muslim empire, that was true.

The same could be said about the Muslims in the Russian Empire, yes they did suffer much worse treatement than Christians did under Turkish rule, but there still are tens of millions of Muslims in the Russian federation as opposed to pagans and other religionists, which dissapeared in all parts of Europe. Anyway this part isn't really significant to the discussion.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Or how about the USA? We might note that the natives are still confined to reservations - that is, the ones that survived centuries of extermination. There is definitely a double-standard that is applied to Muslim states, particularly the Ottomans, who at least strove to achieve equality for all subjects.

Confined? How exactly are they being confined?

I don't see anyone protesting the Navajo gulag anywhere...

 

[danielbd]

You're referring to very distant eras. It's interesting that people tend to compare the Ottomans in the 16th c with Europe today when it comes to moral questions. In the 15th-16th c, Europe was embroiled in Inquisitions, expelling and massacring Jews, exterminating minorities, and endless warfare over what can only be characterized as minor doctinal issues - at the same time, the Ottomans, while not perfect, were a virtual paragon of tolerance. Yes, Christians were legally disadvantaged vs Muslims, but that is in comparison to Europe, where Muslims were not allowed to live at all.

And i did say that the Ottoman Empire was "very tolerant and advanced" for it's age, but the things you said pointed towards something short of discrimination of Muslims in favour of Christians in a Muslim Empire (insitutionally more advantaged than Muslims you said). In theory maybe, but in reality how many of those laws where applied before 1878? when Christians became a minority in the European provinces.
And again... i did not compare the Ottomans to Western Europe. I do not know how England or other European powers became part of the discussion.

I did not say that ALL conquests were defensive actions - but people tend to take a "computer game" view of history in retrospect, as if Sultans were sitting at a terminal planning their EUIII turns.

I hope i did not give that impression. Some guy a couple of weeks ago got angry because the answer given to his question ("Can Aragon form Spain?") wasn't what he expected. That would have been something to make it seem that i know history from EU III, but i believe i did not come off as that.
I myself did not say that all wars were of agression, but it was natural for the Ottomans to want to expand into Europe. It is not like if they would not have been provoked, they would not have expanded into South Eastern Europe. A relatively rich region, lacking a dominant power (with Hungary having chronic dynastic problems) "asked" to be occupied. And religious motivation i believe had an impact during those times. Indeed, not as much as it is said, but some yes.

The Ottoman state's purpose was not to wage war on the infidel as Gazis - that is just pure myth created later.

Well...i must admit i got that from reading too much Kinross and other Anglo-Saxon writers. But the Gazi did imo constitute a very important element in the very early empire. Weren't all Ottoman troops and notables Gazi during the this periods? I mean before it became a real state.

As for your point about Christian wealth, I specifically referred to the Tanzimat era beginning in 1839. But even before that, it is absolutely not true that all landowners were Muslim. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it sounds a little "jihad-watchy". You seem to be referring to the Middle Ages and ignoring the evolution of the empire into the modern era. For instance, although in earlier periods there were clothing regulations (as there were in Europe as well), the applied to everyone, including Muslims, and were totally abolished in the 1830s when the fez was adopted as the universal headgear for all Ottomans and Western dress encouraged. As of 1839 all Ottoman subjectes were legally equal (albeit it took longer to make this true in practice). The Christian millets actually fought against this as they wanted to enjoy the benefits of their separate millets without having to bear the burden of military service.

I have to admit i was wrong in saying that no Christians held land; that is the impression i got since there were no big Christian "boyar" like landowners, the Christian elite being centered around Istanbul, Izmir and other similar cities, were ownership of land would not have been an issue.
Also, didn't the rural Christian notables practice tax farming? Why would they practice it if they owned extensive tracts of land? And how would all those thousands of timars be given to soldiers as rewards ? Wouldn't those have come from confiscated Christian land? How much land could there have been in order for the Christians to own an important part of it.

Regarding the Tanzimat period, you said that economic and demographic growth of the Christian population happened in the 16th to 18th centuries because of war affecting the Muslims more and all of that, so i (mistakenly it appears) assumed that you were talking about economy during that earlier period.

And about the Christian millets fighting against the reforms. By millet do you mean the leaders of it? The rich phanariots and the Ottoman appointed Orthodox clergy that had nothing to win by change? or the general population.

As for the Bulgarians, Bulgaria was undergoing an enormous economic boom by the 1870s with rapidly developing proto-industry. You make it sound like Christian peasants were all led around in chains tilling fields for their Muslim overlords who rode them with whips like beasts of burden.

Yet you made it seem like the majority of Bulgarians would have been more advantaged than the Muslim population. Even during and after the Tanzimat, how much of a fortune could a regular Bulgarian hill billy acumulate?

I would recommend, if you're interested in economic history, The Balkan Economies, c. 1800-1914 by Michael Pailaret. The general consensus of economic historians is that the late empire was actually quite prosperous economically and the Balkan states, once independent, declined and became backwaters.

I can safely say that for Romania that was not the case. The economy growing after the removal of the Phanariot governors. And while the economy as a whole did decline, the general Christian population (about which we were talking) would not have felt it decline significantly since Muslim lands and property had been confiscated and there were more resources available for fewer population groups (with all the expulsion and ethnic cleansing). I know it is a terrible way to look at things, but it imo it is true.

BTW, while urban centers often had large Muslim populations, none of the cities you mention were population "almost entirely" by Muslims. The reasons are complicated, but part of this was the administrative cadre and garrison, plus the presence of landowners, religious insitutions, and schools, which generated demand for goods, in turn required support services.

I admit not all were almost entirely inhabited by Muslims, but for Belgrade pasalik at least i can confirm that out of the aproximately 300 000 Serbs, the overwhelming majority lived in the countryside and that the 20 000 Muslims lived almost entirely in towns, the nature of the Serb rebellion and other future wars reflected this. (towns being besieged by Christians)

Your comment about the Muslim superiority complex to me reflects Victorian thinking, in a rather hypocritical way. Was the British Empire not animated by the certainty of superiority? Did the English consider Scots to be their equals? How about the Irish? And let's not forget the Indian and African subjects, none of which had any access whatsoever to office, whereas Christians served as ministers in the Ottoman state.

I apologise if i came out as that but... again, i did not say that the British were superior to the Ottomans. Why do you assume i did? What reason would i have to consider Western culture as being superior? All of my ancestors fought vendettas with Albanians over sheep for 1000 years for Christ's sake. Why would i defend Victorian British culture and disregard Muslim culture? I said that in most, if not all states, the dominant culture opressed in various degrees the minority culture. Which was generally the case until roughly 50 years ago.
The Koran supports the superiority of Muslims over the rest. While the Bible does not have any legal parameters for handling with non-believers, most cultures chose to assume they should consider themselves superior.

Or how about the USA? We might note that the natives are still confined to reservations - that is, the ones that survived centuries of extermination. There is definitely a double-standard that is applied to Muslim states, particularly the Ottomans, who at least strove to achieve equality for all subjects.

Again i did not judge Muslims states in comparison to other states; and if i did it would have been the other way around. I said it like it was.
You hinted that Balkan Christians lived almost as well under Muslim rule as they did after it ended, which is not the case.

 

[Keenir]

Maybe i did but what is the relevance? Did i compare the Ottomans to England? No.

you described the Ottomans in such a way that could equally describe the English.

Did i judge them and said that one is better than the other? No. I was merely saying that the Ottomans weren't invited to rule the Balkans. They were invited to fulfil a military role, receive their "payment" and move on.

the British didn't leave India all that fast either, even when all they were asked to do was advise on military matters.

You said that most administrative offices were held by Christian, and i gave you the most important offices in the state. The offices that held the real power of the state's mechanism.

a beylerbey is more powerful than a Minister?

that's like saying Governor Sarah Palin is more powerful (as a governor) than Sec. of State C.Rice.

I was reffering to early beginings of the Ottomans, when they were all they did was raid and occupy Christian settlements without provocation,

not like the Christians.

oh wait, its exactly like the Christians.

to show that, at least at the start, the Turks did wage mostly wars of agression.

well of course they did, genius.

show me one group of horse nomads who don't raid and occupy and do terrible stuff like that.

 

[Keenir]

Well...i must admit i got that from reading too much Kinross and other Anglo-Saxon writers. But the Gazi did imo constitute a very important element in the very early empire. Weren't all Ottoman troops and notables Gazi during the this periods? I mean before it became a real state.

yes - just like all the Christian Greeks and Russians were....just like William the Conquerer (damn, England again)

I have to admit i was wrong in saying that no Christians held land; that is the impression i got since there were no big Christian "boyar" like landowners,

you mean like the Mihaloghlu family?

And about the Christian millets fighting against the reforms. By millet do you mean the leaders of it?

if you're a Christian shopkeeper, do you want total immunity from the law and taxes & have the protection of wealthy foreign Powers who have warships parked just offshore.....or do you want to be a normal person in a country whose economy is flagging?

Even during and after the Tanzimat, how much of a fortune could a regular Bulgarian hill billy acumulate?

well, given that a hillbilly is a hillbilly because he's poor and lives in a remote spot, I'd say the same amount no matter what religion he was.

The Koran supports the superiority of Muslims over the rest. While the Bible does not have any legal parameters for handling with non-believers

actually it does. 'you shall kill him'

 

[danielbd]

well of course they did, genius.

First of all... wow... did not see that one coming. I thought people here were civilised.

you described the Ottomans in such a way that could equally describe the English.

SO ? I do not care. What relevance does it have to the discussion? Explain

the British didn't leave India all that fast either, even when all they were asked to do was advise on military matters.

Again you are obssessed with these English. What is up with this?

a beylerbey is more powerful than a Minister?

A Grand Vezir sure as hell is.

that's like saying Governor Sarah Palin is more powerful (as a governor) than Sec. of State C.Rice.

ok.... what? now we are talking about the US?

not like the Christians.

oh wait, its exactly like the Christians.

WHAT CHRISTIANS?? Orthodox Christians from the Balkans? When did they attack Islam? Or are you thinking about Frankish Crusaders or the Reconquista?
How much relevance does that have regarding the Balkan Christians. Byzantium was on the defensive from the 11th century onwards, while the rest where too weak to control their own domains.

 

[danielbd]

......

I have to leave now. Will continue to later.

 

[Keenir]

First of all... wow... did not see that one coming. I thought people here were civilised.

I reply in the manner of the person I am conversing with.

Again you are obssessed with these English. What is up with this?

ok.... what? now we are talking about the US?

it seems that your style (at least in this thread) is to attack Ottoman atrocities (which is fine) and scream bloody murder when others point out that others did the same thing (not fine)

your response, thus far, consists essentially of "NO NO NO, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE BALKANS, SO IT DOESN'T COUNT!"

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I have to get some sleep and I'm getting incoherent, but the Principalities are a totally different case as they were not part of the regular Ottoman administration. There is no doubt that the Phanariot regime was just horrible. For the most part Balkan nationalisms initially began as struggles against Greek domination, not Ottoman. Rumania is an excellent case in point, but Bulgaria is another.

Bosnia also did reasonably well under Haspburg rule after 1878, although the regime really overburdened the economy with "colonial" industrial enterprises and badly neglected agriculture and industries that would be useful in Bosnia.

Not all Bulgarians were hillbillies - there were also merchants, entrepreneurs, etc.

In general there was very little large landholding in the Ottoman Empire, except in some of the Arab provinces. That had the positive effect of protecting the small farmer, but the negative effect that it made capital accumulation difficult. In theory, all land belonged to the state, although from the 19th c reforms created land ownership closely approximating our concept of freehold.

I did mean that Bulgarian Christians were advantaged over Muslims. They had the same taxes but no military service. In addition, prominent Bulgarian merchants and businessmen could take advantage of the Capitulations to assume Great Power citizenship which effectively made them tax-exempt, which have them a huge advantage over Muslim competitors. Also, Europeans tended to refuse to deal directly with Muslims, instead using Christian intermediaries, another big advantage for Christian business.

Regarding the Gazi thing, it was later emphasized when the Ottomans were weaker in relation to Europe and were shoring up their internal legitimacy by portraying themselves as the defenders of Islam.

Millet leaders tended to be extremely conservative and anti-reform (as they were largely clergy) until the 19th c, when the Ottomans granted the millets consitutions with elective organs, which laicized them. But what I actually meant was that Christians resisted legal equality because by the mid 19th c they were largely legally advantaged over Muslims as they had their own courts for personal matters, civil courts for everything else, could appeal to foriegn consuls for protection and interference, and didn't have to perform military service. As a result, Christians were protected from the inefficiencies of the Ottoman administration in ways that Muslims were not.

Regarding comparisons, I just meant that you can't compare the Ottomans of 1500 with European states much later. More importantly, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist 100 years ago, so there isn't really any reasonable way to measure its "morality" versus modern standards - you would have to project what it would be like if it still existed, and based on its history and development, it would probably be a quite a bit more liberal and tolerant than anything in the Middle East today, including Turkey.

I think it's an important point about the nature of balance of power politics and the hypocricy of the powers that "Ottoman misrule" was constantly used as an excuse to dismember the empire, which had declared total equality as a principle of the state decades before Russia even liberated their serfs (!) and many European countries had emancipated their Jews.

Finally, the same powers that criticized the Ottomans got their chance to rule the Mid East after WWI and didn't do any better - in fact, considerably worse!

Anyway, I can see from my post why there was so much confusion over time periods - it's hard to have a coherent discussion about a 600 year period without putting it in essay format, but you seem to know a lot about the history of the region. Just stay away from Kinross

And i did say that the Ottoman Empire was "very tolerant and advanced" for it's age, but the things you said pointed towards something short of discrimination of Muslims in favour of Christians in a Muslim Empire (insitutionally more advantaged than Muslims you said). In theory maybe, but in reality how many of those laws where applied before 1878? when Christians became a minority in the European provinces.
And again... i did not compare the Ottomans to Western Europe. I do not know how England or other European powers became part of the discussion.


I hope i did not give that impression. Some guy a couple of weeks ago got angry because the answer given to his question ("Can Aragon form Spain?") wasn't what he expected. That would have been something to make it seem that i know history from EU III, but i believe i did not come off as that.
I myself did not say that all wars were of agression, but it was natural for the Ottomans to want to expand into Europe. It is not like if they would not have been provoked, they would not have expanded into South Eastern Europe. A relatively rich region, lacking a dominant power (with Hungary having chronic dynastic problems) "asked" to be occupied. And religious motivation i believe had an impact during those times. Indeed, not as much as it is said, but some yes.


Well...i must admit i got that from reading too much Kinross and other Anglo-Saxon writers. But the Gazi did imo constitute a very important element in the very early empire. Weren't all Ottoman troops and notables Gazi during the this periods? I mean before it became a real state.


I have to admit i was wrong in saying that no Christians held land; that is the impression i got since there were no big Christian "boyar" like landowners, the Christian elite being centered around Istanbul, Izmir and other similar cities, were ownership of land would not have been an issue.
Also, didn't the rural Christian notables practice tax farming? Why would they practice it if they owned extensive tracts of land? And how would all those thousands of timars be given to soldiers as rewards ? Wouldn't those have come from confiscated Christian land? How much land could there have been in order for the Christians to own an important part of it.

Regarding the Tanzimat period, you said that economic and demographic growth of the Christian population happened in the 16th to 18th centuries because of war affecting the Muslims more and all of that, so i (mistakenly it appears) assumed that you were talking about economy during that earlier period.

And about the Christian millets fighting against the reforms. By millet do you mean the leaders of it? The rich phanariots and the Ottoman appointed Orthodox clergy that had nothing to win by change? or the general population.

Yet you made it seem like the majority of Bulgarians would have been more advantaged than the Muslim population. Even during and after the Tanzimat, how much of a fortune could a regular Bulgarian hill billy acumulate?


I can safely say that for Romania that was not the case. The economy growing after the removal of the Phanariot governors. And while the economy as a whole did decline, the general Christian population (about which we were talking) would not have felt it decline significantly since Muslim lands and property had been confiscated and there were more resources available for fewer population groups (with all the expulsion and ethnic cleansing). I know it is a terrible way to look at things, but it imo it is true.


I admit not all were almost entirely inhabited by Muslims, but for Belgrade pasalik at least i can confirm that out of the aproximately 300 000 Serbs, the overwhelming majority lived in the countryside and that the 20 000 Muslims lived almost entirely in towns, the nature of the Serb rebellion and other future wars reflected this. (towns being besieged by Christians)


I apologise if i came out as that but... again, i did not say that the British were superior to the Ottomans. Why do you assume i did? What reason would i have to consider Western culture as being superior? All of my ancestors fought vendettas with Albanians over sheep for 1000 years for Christ's sake. Why would i defend Victorian British culture and disregard Muslim culture? I said that in most, if not all states, the dominant culture opressed in various degrees the minority culture. Which was generally the case until roughly 50 years ago.
The Koran supports the superiority of Muslims over the rest. While the Bible does not have any legal parameters for handling with non-believers, most cultures chose to assume they should consider themselves superior.


Again i did not judge Muslims states in comparison to other states; and if i did it would have been the other way around. I said it like it was.
You hinted that Balkan Christians lived almost as well under Muslim rule as they did after it ended, which is not the case.

 

[Leo Caesius]

And while the economy as a whole did decline, the general Christian population (about which we were talking) would not have felt it decline significantly since Muslim lands and property had been confiscated and there were more resources available for fewer population groups (with all the expulsion and ethnic cleansing). I know it is a terrible way to look at things, but it imo it is true.

I have to question this assumption. Looking at many places in the Third World where the economy was in the hands of a minority which was subsequently expelled or otherwise compelled to leave (think of Zimbabwe, Uganda, even Indonesia) I think it's fairly obvious that the economy as a whole suffered.

After all, labor and human resources are an important part of the economy (and for some countries, like Singapore, the most important part of the economy). When you eliminate one of the most productive parts of your economy, what happens?

Finally trade depended upon a web of connections. Skopje would have been connected with Salonica. Salonica would have been connected with Istanbul. Istanbul would have been connected with Salonica and Sofia. And so forth. These cities would have benefited by being part of a massive empire. All of a sudden, the lines are disrupted by war, the borders come down, and these cities suddenly find themselves in different countries. That has a disastrous affect upon the economy.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I have to question this assumption. Looking at many places in the Third World where the economy was in the hands of a minority which was subsequently expelled or otherwise compelled to leave (think of Zimbabwe, Uganda, even Indonesia) I think it's fairly obvious that the economy as a whole suffered.

After all, labor and human resources are an important part of the economy (and for some countries, like Singapore, the most important part of the economy). When you eliminate one of the most productive parts of your economy, what happens?

Finally trade depended upon a web of connections. Skopje would have been connected with Salonica. Salonica would have been connected with Istanbul. Istanbul would have been connected with Salonica and Sofia. And so forth. These cities would have benefited by being part of a massive empire. All of a sudden, the lines are disrupted by war, the borders come down, and these cities suddenly find themselves in different countries. That has a disastrous affect upon the economy.

Also, in a region as sparsely populated as the Balkans, there was generally a surplus of arable land, so eliminating the Muslim population simply meant that there was less land being farmed.

The decline of the Balkans economically has a lot to do with land tenure and pig farming. Essentially, under the Ottomans, forests were held by the State and peasants were allowed to run their pigs through them (pigs eat a lot of stuff in forests). The new Balkan nations divided up the forests into private property which led to deforestation and a decline in productivity in pig production, and a host of other problems.

But also very important, your point about loss of the greater Ottoman market. Suddenly, internal markets became external ones, subject to customs duties, often in both directions. Beyond that, the Balkans squandered huge sums on military spending and prestige projects, a large drain on their economies. They also had inferior credit to the Ottomans and were less able to secure loans, and on worse terms.