WI: Balkans population if no Ottomans?

If the Balkans had never been conquered by the Ottomans, but most of Anatolia (excluding perhaps the western-most coast and Constantinople, along with Trebizond) was Turkified, what would be:

A) the population of OTL Greece
B) the population of OTL Bulgaria
C) the population of OTL Albania
D) the population of OTL Romania
E) the population of OTL Serbia/Bosnia/Montenegro

I ask this because a good number of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and Romanians were converted to Islam and so "became Turks", most of whom now live in Turkey.

So what would happen in this event? Would a lot of Anatolian Greeks who'd otherwise be Turkified migrate to the Balkans? What would the populations be?

Also, if you feel like it, what do you suppose the Balkans fate would be? Hungarian dominated? Bulgarian dominated? Somehow, Byzantine dominated?

Thanks for your answers.
 
I think it depends largely on why the Ottomans didn't take the area since they were such a force in the world that a failure to expand is going to send huge ripples through history. The Ottomans were considered the terror of Europe and both admired and feared.

Either way, the Balkans are going to remain much more Christian and much more culturally Greek. I suspect that the great political aspiration of the region's leaders is going to be reconstituting the Byzantine Empire. I also expect that the region will be much more peaceful since nearly everyone is going to be Greek Orthodox.
 
Either way, the Balkans are going to remain much more Christian and much more culturally Greek. I suspect that the great political aspiration of the region's leaders is going to be reconstituting the Byzantine Empire. I also expect that the region will be much more peaceful since nearly everyone is going to be Greek Orthodox.

Umm, unfortunately, religious homogeneity ≠ kumbaya. Besides there being plenty of room for strife based on ethnic, political, or miss. opportunistic reasons, Western Europe when it was uniformly Roman Catholic, and various other times and places of religious "oneness" would like to have a word with you.

That "reconstitution of the Byzantine Empire" business could be very contentious. Perhaps Serbs or Bulgarians or Vlachs would like a piece of the action, if not THE action...
 
Last edited:
It indeed really depends on who will be in charge. If Greek rule is going to remain unchallenged until XIX century, than most likely Bulgarians and Serbs will hellenize. If Greece will be fragmented between dozen of small states, than I can't see how Turks don't use opportunity to cross Bosphorus (unless they're stopped by Bulgarians, but it's unlikely- at least for long time).
 
It indeed really depends on who will be in charge. If Greek rule is going to remain unchallenged until XIX century, than most likely Bulgarians and Serbs will hellenize. If Greece will be fragmented between dozen of small states, than I can't see how Turks don't use opportunity to cross Bosphorus (unless they're stopped by Bulgarians, but it's unlikely- at least for long time).

That needs an extremely deep POD.
 
I can speak about the territory of todays Croatia and BiH since according to the writen accounts of the time (though these should be taken with a pinch of salt) between 1415 and 1593 lost around 600 000 due to being taken to slavery by the Ottomans with another 350 000 fleeing to what is today Slovenia, Italy, western Hungary, eastern Austria, Slovakia and Czech republik. Add to that several major battles and near constant skirmishes and raids and it was a demographic disaster of epic porportions. It is estimated that joint territory of Croatia and BiH at the begining of the 15th century didn't have more than 2 million people.
 
That needs an extremely deep POD.

Lack of Manzikert would be a good start. Or successful Komnenos dynasty. Most likely surviving Byzantium would do same thing Ottomans did- conquer Levant, Egypt, maybe something more, but because Byzantium never neglected Balkans as much as Turks did, and Greeks shared religion with Balkan inhabitants, it'd most likely have better results than it otl for Ottomans.
 
Everything can only be good without those darn mussulmans.

Frankly, without the Ottomans and without resurgent Byzantine entity to fill their place Balkan orthodox christians are doomed to be dominated by Latin and Catholic subjugation. At least for a while. Who knows what follows later, whether it will weaken and give way for either Serbs or Bulgars fill the vacuum and reunite Byzantine domain in Europe, or whether will it continue to be part of western christendom and will later be dragged into Reformation. I would suppose that without Ottomans, the best chance for Balkans would be Stephen Dushan. If you want to prevent the expulsion of converted descendants of christian Serbs, Albanians, Greeks, Bulgars etc we can simply go with preventing Ottomans from losing the Balkans, really.
 
Balkans was Ottoman's powerbase. If anything, it's Asia that they kinda neglected.

Huh? I mean- I know that Ottos did raised their armies on Balkans mostly, but these armies were composed of slaves/levies, and that was reason why these armies were often huge (100k man). I know that in XIX century Egypt became semi-independent, and Ottomans lost their power over most of their Asian provinces, but in general they were focused on continent where 2/3 of their empire lied- Asia. After all it were Serbs and Bulgarians who had actually autonomy, not Syrians and Egyptians.
 
Everything can only be good without those darn mussulmans.

Frankly, without the Ottomans and without resurgent Byzantine entity to fill their place Balkan orthodox christians are doomed to be dominated by Latin and Catholic subjugation. At least for a while. Who knows what follows later, whether it will weaken and give way for either Serbs or Bulgars fill the vacuum and reunite Byzantine domain in Europe, or whether will it continue to be part of western christendom and will later be dragged into Reformation. I would suppose that without Ottomans, the best chance for Balkans would be Stephen Dushan. If you want to prevent the expulsion of converted descendants of christian Serbs, Albanians, Greeks, Bulgars etc we can simply go with preventing Ottomans from losing the Balkans, really.
The idea that without the Ottomans the Balkans would be taken over the Hungarians or the Latins is a common Ottoman apologist myth without any historical backing. The Orthodox nations were certainly able to defeat on their own the Latin Empire and prevent the halfhearted Hungarian efforts to expand south into the Balkans.

Also, during Ottoman rule there was a constant immigration of Christians from the Ottoman Empire, so in no way did its existence contribute to population growth.
 
Last edited:
Huh? I mean- I know that Ottos did raised their armies on Balkans mostly, but these armies were composed of slaves/levies, and that was reason why these armies were often huge (100k man). I know that in XIX century Egypt became semi-independent, and Ottomans lost their power over most of their Asian provinces, but in general they were focused on continent where 2/3 of their empire lied- Asia. After all it were Serbs and Bulgarians who had actually autonomy, not Syrians and Egyptians.

That's not how you decided the power base of a country. People usually apply the briefly lasting blood tax system to the entire span of the empire's existence, which was not what happened. Indeed, Janissary institution remained a vehicle for social mobility for christians afterwards, but it wasn't the only source of manpower, which was after all buttrested mainly on muslims, which was majorly contributed by the Balkans. Before the Balkans finally slipped from Ottoman control in 1878, it was 40s % muslim, and muslims were likely a big plurality already since Mehmed Fatih at the earliest. It wasn't all converts, but also Turkic immigrants from the east. Devshirme wasn't also the sole source of converts, too.

The idea that without the Ottomans the Balkans would be taken over the Hungarians or the Latins is a common Ottoman apologist myth without any historical backing. The Orthodox nations were certainly able to defeat on their own the Latin Empire and prevent the halfhearted Hungarian efforts to expand south into the Balkans.

Anyone else besides Stephen Dushan ?
 
One would like to see the source for those figures.

The book is Vjekoslav Klaić: History of the Croats, Zagreb 1899-1911, unfortunately people back then didn't cite their sources so I will need some time to get the exact sources. In short they are from church reports to higher ups, pleeds for aid sent to Venice and Regensburg as well as some Ottoman reports. The library is currently not available to me.

But I repeat the number I mentioned above should be taken with a pinch (or a truck load if you preferee :p )of salt.
 
That's not how you decided the power base of a country. People usually apply the briefly lasting blood tax system to the entire span of the empire's existence, which was not what happened. Indeed, Janissary institution remained a vehicle for social mobility for christians afterwards, but it wasn't the only source of manpower, which was after all buttrested mainly on muslims, which was majorly contributed by the Balkans. Before the Balkans finally slipped from Ottoman control in 1878, it was 40s % muslim, and muslims were likely a big plurality already since Mehmed Fatih at the earliest. It wasn't all converts, but also Turkic immigrants from the east. Devshirme wasn't also the sole source of converts, too.
The 40% figure is a significant exaggeration. Thit figure is probably close to the situation after 1878.
And of course the Muslims were never the largest religious group in the whole of the Balkans which is what the word plurality actually means.

Also, I wouldn't call a system that lasted for three centuries "brief". Or what was essentially enslavement, forced conversion and brainwashing "a vehicle for social mobility", especially when it was considered a privilege to be freed from it.


Anyone else besides Stephen Dushan ?
The Hungarians were driven out of Vidin without great difficulties by a weakened Bulgaria (granted with the help of the not especially strong Wallachia) in the 1360s.
 
The book is Vjekoslav Klaić: History of the Croats, Zagreb 1899-1911, unfortunately people back then didn't cite their sources so I will need some time to get the exact sources. In short they are from church reports to higher ups, pleeds for aid sent to Venice and Regensburg as well as some Ottoman reports. The library is currently not available to me.

But I repeat the number I mentioned above should be taken with a pinch (or a truck load if you preferee :p )of salt.

Is there any particular reason he uses 1415 as a starting point? I always picture most of the Balkans as being Ottoman-controlled by Nicopolis in 1396, with that the last vestiges of independence except for a Bulgarian war for independence which failed, the miniscule Byzantines who held on til 1453 etc..

If I ever have time to get e3nough of my "No Richard II" TL, with John of Gaunt as King of England, butterflies are going to lead to a very minimal crusade which leaves the Ottomans overconfident agaisnt Timur a few years later, leading to their doom in Asia. Other threads have helped me with the Karaminids for a replacemnt, but this will give the Balkans some breathing room.
 
Is there any particular reason he uses 1415 as a starting point? I always picture most of the Balkans as being Ottoman-controlled by Nicopolis in 1396, with that the last vestiges of independence except for a Bulgarian war for independence which failed, the miniscule Byzantines who held on til 1453 etc..

That is the date of the first Ottoman raid/campaign into what is today Bosnia and Herzegovina.
 
The book is Vjekoslav Klaić: History of the Croats, Zagreb 1899-1911, unfortunately people back then didn't cite their sources so I will need some time to get the exact sources. In short they are from church reports to higher ups, pleeds for aid sent to Venice and Regensburg as well as some Ottoman reports. The library is currently not available to me.

But I repeat the number I mentioned above should be taken with a pinch (or a truck load if you preferee :p )of salt.

Thanks. It's the sort of thing that's easily overreported by those trying to present this as "we need help badly", above and beyond any modern issues with fair history, so it's good to have a sense of where the figures were drawn from.
 
Top