WI: More peaceful Balkans?

[Avitus]

So yeah, if the Ottomans don't take control of the Balkans, and the area instead manages to achieve some level of internal balance while retaining independance (in the sence of not having too much interference from Turks, Russians, or Western Europeans), what does it look like? For our purposes, assume the map stays as close to the way it was in 1300 as possible, with a rump Byzantine Empire in Greece and European Turkey, Serbia, Bosnia, and Bulgaria independant, Hungary at its larger size with Transylvania and Croatia, and Wallachia and Moldavia free as well. Do as you wish with the Greek Crusader states, the Venetian Empire, Epirus, and Albania, since none of them are overlikely to be cutting big swathes out of the Balkans or launching particularly destructive wars.

Under these conditions, and assuming a relatively consistent status quo, with larger nations keeping the balance because of other problems and smaller nations being generally foiled in their attempts to conquer eachother, how does the area look? By this I mostly mean, how prosperous and populous can the region become without being incorporated into the Ottoman empire (who most would agree mismanaged the area considerably) and later becoming one of Europe's preferred battlegrounds? Also, does Constantinople become huge without being the capital of a huge empire, and what other cities become important? With a 1300 PoD Tarnovo is the capital of Bulgaria, Tirana hasn't been founded yet, Thessalonica is most likely the largest city in the Balkans (pop. roughly 100,000), and Athens, while notable for its excellent port, is vurtually insignificant.

So, short version, how well can the Balkans do if they are divided but relatively peaceful?

 

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

I doubt the Balkans will be peaceful if they are divided. Even before the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans, there was still a lot of warfare going on in the Balkans.

 

[Elfwine]

Yeah. If you want a peaceful (in the sense OTL has been anything but) region, you want fewer competing powers trying to find a way to gain an advantage over each other, not more.

Brings with it its own problems to unite the area, but multiple small nations do not lead to peace.

 

[Avitus]

I doubt the Balkans will be peaceful if they are divided. Even before the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans, there was still a lot of warfare going on in the Balkans.

Yeah. If you want a peaceful (in the sense OTL has been anything but) region, you want fewer competing powers trying to find a way to gain an advantage over each other, not more.

Brings with it its own problems to unite the area, but multiple small nations do not lead to peace.

Understood, but would it really be as bad as OTL?

Looking into cutting down the number of nations, perhaps, say we cut it down to three in the Balkans proper, rump Byzantium (but we have it absorb the entire Greek peninsula up to and including Albania, to cut down on small variable powers), larger Serbia (perhaps they take control of what's left of the western Balkans that isn't Hungarian) and roughly OTL Bulgaria (although I suppose we can have them in Eastern Romania as well to some extent). If we have these three (five with Hungary and Venice, but they are outliers and with luck can have more pressing business elsewhere, and or a vested interest in keeping the peace), do you feel it can be appreciably more peaceful than IOTL? If so, then it's back to the original question.

 

[Elfwine]

Understood, but would it really be as bad as OTL?

OTL in what period?

Looking into cutting down the number of nations, perhaps, say we cut it down to three in the Balkans proper, rump Byzantium (but we have it absorb the entire Greek peninsula up to and including Albania, to cut down on small variable powers), larger Serbia (perhaps they take control of what's left of the western Balkans that isn't Hungarian) and roughly OTL Bulgaria (although I suppose we can have them in Eastern Romania as well to some extent). If we have these three (five with Hungary and Venice, but they are outliers and with luck can have more pressing business elsewhere, and or a vested interest in keeping the peace), do you feel it can be appreciably more peaceful than IOTL? If so, then it's back to the original question.

Frankly, no. I think having multiple rival powers that have no reason to get along is not going to be appreciably more peaceful than the period it was under Ottoman rule (it might or might not be better for the people in the times of peace - I don't know enough on Ottoman rule - but it would not have fewer wars)

 

[Tibi088]

My opinion:

The ottomans were a catastrophe for the region. First of all because of the ottoman kind of warfare. There was never real piece because there was constant raiding in the border area. So it was the worst if you were around the border - and at some point evry nation of the region was around the border. The population and trade od the region suffered heavily not to mention that ties to west Europe were severed - for example no printing press for a long time because the ottomans prohibited it.

I dont know how much more peaceful the territory would have been but the kinds of war that would have been fought on the territory would have been less devastating for the local populance. I think that the Balkans without the ottoman rule would be now much closer to western europe - in every sense.

 

[Elfwine]

How are you having less raiding with multiple independent nations fighting each other?

That really doesn't make sense, unless you think that somehow they'll all get along.

 

[Tibi088]

Because when you make peace you stop raiding. Peace with the ottomans meant that no big champaigns but the raiding continued.

 

[Elfwine]

Because when you make peace you stop raiding. Peace with the ottomans meant that no big champaigns but the raiding continued.

And there will be far less in the way of peace with multiple, competing powers - meaning all the fun of all out war more often and raiding as part of that or in lieu of that.

 

[Tibi088]

But that far less peace would be real peace. And if the territory is unified by one power that will lead to a lot of problem when nationalism spreds to the region - 19th century. Like it did OTL. But maybe another ruler wouldnt have reacted as drastically as the ottomans did.

But if you really want a unified Balkans that may be better - i didnt argue this. What i argued is that that unifier shouldnt be the ottomans. Anyone would have been better - Serbia, Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire, Hungary, Habsburgs or Venice.

In my opinion the worst part of the ottoman rule was the devastating constant raiding on the border region. But the way that the ottomans basically stopped the tecnological advence of the region and cut it off from the west might be equally bad.

 

[Elfwine]

But that far less peace would be real peace. And if the territory is unified by one power that will lead to a lot of problem when nationalism spreds to the region - 19th century. Like it did OTL. But maybe another ruler wouldnt have reacted as drastically as the ottomans did.

I don't agree that it would be "real peace" any more than it was "real peace" under the Ottomans. The Ottomans seem to have handled the Balkans better than they're given credit for (judging by how long the area accepted Ottoman rule), and the frontiers of small, squabbling states are rarely peaceful.

But if you really want a unified Balkans that may be better - i didnt argue this. What i argued is that that unifier shouldnt be the ottomans. Anyone would have been better - Serbia, Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire, Hungary, Habsburgs or Venice.

And I disagree. Serbia or Bulgaria or Byzantium? Why are they going to do better?

Hungary or Habsburgs? Yes, let's have a Catholic power which is intensely despised by the locals and eager to spread the One True Faith. That can't cause any problems. Venice? I don't see Venice being interested, or if it was interested, doing better than any of the others.

In my opinion the worst part of the ottoman rule was the devastating constant raiding on the border region. But the way that the ottomans basically stopped the tecnological advence of the region and cut it off from the west might be equally bad.

And that raiding on the borders is not going to magically go away because you have some other state in charge and even less if you have multiple hostile states.

I really would like to see how the Ottomans stopped the technological advance of the region as compared to the alternative powers. The printing press being banned may be a thing, but I'm not really aware of any great drive towards technological advancement in this region pre-Ottoman rule or in the territories of states like Hungary (before or after Ottoman rule).

And "cut it off from the West"? I'm not really sure that the people who made a point of preferring the sultan's turban to the pope's tiara (the Byzantines, I don't know what sentiments were expressed by other Balkan states but I'm not aware of any of them eagerly embracing Latin rule) had such strong connections to Western Europe that being under Ottoman rule drove them out of its sphere.

 

[Tibi088]

So you are saying that the best thing that could have happened to the Balkans are the ottomans - why i say that they were the worst possible scenario.

I already stated the difference between making peace with an european power and making peace with the ottomans. In one case the fighting stops - in the other not. Now are they both the same? The populace that has to suffer the raids in times of peace woudnt agree with you i guess.

Lets say a few things about how i vision the Balkans around 1800 without ottomans to demonstrate what i mean by stopping technological advance:
-Printing press for one thing and all the important consequences of that ( i think this was one of the most important things in humanities history)
-Universities. Not many but at least some
-After enlightened absolutism the begginings of the school system
-it would be technologically at worst case around Russia (most likely better)
-much better government - locally and at higher levels

You mentioned Hungary and how you dont now of its technological advance before the ottomans:
Hungary under Matyas (1458-1490) was a really interesting state. It had one of the biggest libraries of Europe -collected by the king. Italian renessaince has spread to the country. It had the strongest amy of Middle-Europe: Matyas conquered Moravia, Silesia and a great part of Austria. That Hungary doesnt look that bad to me especially if i compare it to the Hungary lets say in 1600.

 

[Elfwine]

So you are saying that the best thing that could have happened to the Balkans are the ottomans - why i say that they were the worst possible scenario.

No, I'd say that all the options suck, and I'd rather take the power that managed to rule the area for four centuries over the nonBalkan alternatives that are going to ram their faith down upon the area or having to pick one of the powers that OTL (pre-Ottomans) squabbled over it with mixed results in terms of rulership.

Maybe one of them ruling it all would work better, maybe not. But that's far more dependent on something more specific than "____ ruling would definitely be better", and I say this as someone who is proud of being a Byzantophile.

I already stated the difference between making peace with an european power and making peace with the ottomans. In one case the fighting stops - in the other not. Now are they both the same? The populace that has to suffer the raids in times of peace woudnt agree with you i guess.

This thread is the only place I see "constant raiding" being discussed as a feature of Ottoman rule of the Balkans. I admit to not being a subject matter expert, but if you're going to make that claim, I'd love to see a reliable source.

Lets say a few things about how i vision the Balkans around 1800 without ottomans to demonstrate what i mean by stopping technological advance:
-Printing press for one thing and all the important consequences of that ( i think this was one of the most important things in humanities history)
-Universities. Not many but at least some
-After enlightened absolutism the begginings of the school system
-it would be technologically at worst case around Russia (most likely better)
-much better government - locally and at higher levels

1) And this will automatically appear because obviously no other power would block it. That may be true, but I don't think it's self-evident.

2) I'm pretty sure there were universities in the Ottoman Balkans. Certainly Istanbul counts, not sure what we apply to anything outside that city.

3) Why?

4) This is not a step up (being equivalent to Russia). I'm not sure why you think it would be "most likely better" either.

5) This needs some actual basis other than "I think the Ottomans were the worst thing to happen to the Balkans."

You mentioned Hungary and how you dont now of its technological advance before the ottomans:
Hungary under Matyas (1458-1490) was a really interesting state. It had one of the biggest libraries of Europe -collected by the king. Italian renessaince has spread to the country. It had the strongest amy of Middle-Europe: Matyas conquered Moravia, Silesia and a great part of Austria. That Hungary doesnt look that bad to me especially if i compare it to the Hungary lets say in 1600.

The king having a big library isn't really very meaningful for the vast majority of the population.

Similarly, I would love to know how much the Italian Renaissance actually meant something for the average Hungarian.

As for the army? What does that have to do with anything in regards to how good a place it was to live or be ruled by (in the case of Moravia, say)?

None of this makes Hungary backwards, that's true, but none of it makes it especially progressive in general either. Picking the reign of one king as if it represented the norm is never a good idea.

And more to the point, what does that have to do with how unwelcome a zealously Catholic power out to press people into converting would be?

 

[Tibi088]

1) And this will automatically appear because obviously no other power would block it. That may be true, but I don't think it's self-evident.

2) I'm pretty sure there were universities in the Ottoman Balkans.

3) Why?

4) This is not a step up (being equivalent to Russia). I'm not sure why you think it would be "most likely betteR" either.

5) This needs some actual basis other than "I think the Ottomans were the worst thing to happen to the Balkans."

We are speculating so we cant say too many things for sure.

1. Nowhere in eu was printing press blocked afaik. Thats the basis of me assuming that no one else would. (im not sure why the ottomans did)

2. Im not sure. Could you name some. With the date of foundation.

3. Cause i assume that they would be still backward compared to europe and the usual reaction to that was enlightened absolutism.

4.I said worst case equivalent to Russia. In 1800 Russia was more advenced than the ottomans. Im not an ottoman expert but after the middle 1600s the decline of the ottomans was pretty constant. Till that point the ottoman werent that bad for those who werent next to the border.

5. From what i know of the ottoman government of the time - i mean after the decline started - they were horrible. Incredibly corrupt on every level and simply incompetent.

The king having a big library isn't really very meaningful for the vast majority of the population.

Similarly, I would love to know how much the Italian Renaissance actually meant something for the average Hungarian.

As for the army? What does that have to do with anything in regards to how good a place it was to live or be ruled by (in the case of Moravia, say)?

None of this makes Hungary backwards, that's true, but none of it makes it especially progressive in general either. Picking the reign of one king as if it represented the norm is never a good idea.

And more to the point, what does that have to do with how unwelcome a zealously Catholic power out to press people into converting would be?

They were positive signs and could have been a beginning - we will never know. And the main cause for that is the ottoman conquest.

As for constant raids: i dont know any international literature on the matter. They tend to focus on the mediterranean front - Lepanto and such. I could list you hungarian titles but i dont think that woudn have any meaning.
I know what happened in Hungary and only guess that the ottomans did the same in the other parts of the Balkans when fighting/conquering them.
In hungary there were lines of forts facing each other. The raiding was constant. After a time from boths sides. One way to earn money was capturing an enemy and ransoming him. There were a lot of duels. The peoples along the borders were taxed by both sides. Not a nice place to live.
In the end: the population of Hungary in 1500 - before ottoman conquest - was around 4 million. Around 1700 -after the ottoman conquest has ended- was still around 4 millions. Meanwhile the population of europe increased dramatically. A lot of the country was uninhadited etc.

 

[profxyz]

The Ottomans were what brought peace to the region. Stagnation (maybe), but also peace.

A cursory glance at the pre-Ottoman period, where Serbia was constantly fighting Bulgaria was constantly fighting the Byzantines, and then you had various other powers like Venice, Bosnia and Wallachia... not peaceful.

Another cursory glance at the late and post-Ottoman period, where Serbia was fighting Bulgaria was fighting Romania was fighting the Ottoman Empire... not peaceful either.

Constant raiding was a problem, but it really ended after Mohacs in 1526, with the focus of the raiding and wars now in Hungary, Moldavia, Dalmatia and the Crimea. There was a reason why Rumelia was by far the most prosperous of the Ottoman regions.

The rise of nationalism was what most people think made Ottoman rule in the Balkans 'bad', I suppose. I still don't see how nationalism wouldn't have occurred without Ottoman rule, though I suppose you would lose the Bosniaks and the religious aspect. You'd still have Bulgarians trying to recreate the First Bulgarian Empire, Serbians trying to recreate Stefan Dusan's conquests and Greeks trying to reestablish the Byzantine Empire. Most importantly, none of them had the resources to actually impose control such rugged and broken terrain in the long-run.

So without the Ottomans you're guaranteed to get wars, constant civil strife, and ethnic division. Hardly better than OTL.

 

[Elfwine]

We are speculating so we cant say too many things for sure.

1. Nowhere in eu was printing press blocked afaik. Thats the basis of me assuming that no one else would. (im not sure why the ottomans did)

Are you using EU to stand for the European Union specifically or Europe in general?

2. Im not sure. Could you name some. With the date of foundation.

Here's a list of early universities: http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/OriginUniversities.html

When do you see the Balkan state/s founding one?

3. Cause i assume that they would be still backward compared to europe and the usual reaction to that was enlightened absolutism.

I would note right about now that enlightened absolutism describes Prussia and Austria (under Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa). What is "Europe" if they don't count?

More to the point, why do you think these rulers are going to inevitably better sponser schools?

4.I said worst case equivalent to Russia. In 1800 Russia was more advenced than the ottomans. Im not an ottoman expert but after the middle 1600s the decline of the ottomans was pretty constant. Till that point the ottoman werent that bad for those who werent next to the border. p/quote]

And I don't think that it couldn't be worse than OTL Russia. More problematically, comparing Imperial Russia near its relative peak to the Ottomans at their worst is hardly a fair measure of how swiftly (or slowly) technology advanced in the two societies.

5. From what i know of the ottoman government of the time - i mean after the decline started - they were horrible. Incredibly corrupt on every level and simply incompetent.

So, like OTL Russia, among other European states. Corruption and incompetence were the bane of every government in this period - Austria, Russia, France, Spain . . .

And of course, if we pick only after their decline, we're going to get a picture much darker than if we look at when they were successful.

They were positive signs and could have been a beginning - we will never know. And the main cause for that is the ottoman conquest.

No, they're not positive signs. A positive sign would be say, a high literacy rate. Something actually relevant to a majority of the country. The king having a lot of books just speaks well of Matyas personally, it doesn't in itself bring anything to anyone else.

As for constant raids: i dont know any international literature on the matter. They tend to focus on the mediterranean front - Lepanto and such. I could list you hungarian titles but i dont think that woudn have any meaning.

Since I can't read Hungarian, unfortunately not.

I know what happened in Hungary and only guess that the ottomans did the same in the other parts of the Balkans when fighting/conquering them.
In hungary there were lines of forts facing each other. The raiding was constant. After a time from boths sides. One way to earn money was capturing an enemy and ransoming him. There were a lot of duels. The peoples along the borders were taxed by both sides. Not a nice place to live.

So why does all the blame for this go to the Ottomans, but none to the other side of the frontier?

In the end: the population of Hungary in 1500 - before ottoman conquest - was around 4 million. Around 1700 -after the ottoman conquest has ended- was still around 4 millions. Meanwhile the population of europe increased dramatically. A lot of the country was uninhadited etc.

And this is of course totally the responsibility of the Ottomans and in no way shape or form has any connection to anything else.

I would not say from my limited reading that this was a good period for Hungary. But I don't think that it was "that it was ruled by the Ottomans" that was the base of all its woes, either.

 

[Avitus]

OTL in what period?

OTL 1300-1900, or thereabouts.

Frankly, no. I think having multiple rival powers that have no reason to get along is not going to be appreciably more peaceful than the period it was under Ottoman rule (it might or might not be better for the people in the times of peace - I don't know enough on Ottoman rule - but it would not have fewer wars)

Then my question is, why do you think that these rival powers are going to be constantly in a state of war 9or even one comperable to their OTL dificulties)? Constant war isn't cost effective, or even possible in most cases, and there were periods of later Byzantine history when they were peaceful with the Serbs and Bulgarians. I would say that the OTL 13th-14th century was a near absolute worst case scenario for establishing a peaceful Balkans. First we have the collapse of Byzantium, which leads to a power vacume, then we have the Latin Empire, which collapsed into a power vacume of its own almost immediately, then we have Bulgaria degenerating rapidly, with Byzantium following not too long after, then the rise of Serbia at the expense of these two, only for Serbia to fall itself, and then we have the Ottomans in Europe, the final collapse of Bulgaria, and a quick resurgence and re-collapse of Byzantium. Finally, we have an extremely tooth and nail conquest of the whole region by the Ottomans, who also forcibly induct a large percentage of their soldiers from the region.

All and all it is about two centuries of unrivalled collapse. We have six major collapses (an impressive three of them by Byzantium), all of them violent. If we have a PoD around 1300 (perhaps a little earlier, but after the Palaiologian restoration) then we can reasonably get rid of half of those problems. Without these rapid rises and collapses, I can see a decent status quo arising, and preventing any state of constant war.

As for what is so bad about Ottoman rule, I don't think they are drastically worse than any other foreign empire, but they definitely didn't try hard to help the Balkans (perfectly reasonable given how little it mattered to their ability to function as a nation, but not good for the Balkans). I definitely consider them to be a worse fate than a three way split of the region. As for why, for starters, we have the fact that under them, a majority of the region's population were treated as second class citizens. Not only did this make life more difficult for the natives (something likely to decrease birth rates in and of itself), it also stifled their culture, severed their trade ties, and increased emmigration away from the region. Very little attempt was made to industrially develop the area that I am aware of (if there was then it certainly wasn't successful), and it seems that the economy stagnated in general during their rule. The Ottoman habit of recruiting their soldiers from Christian families is, of course, bad for the region, because even if they survive they don't return home and contribute to the population.

Then, and perhaps worst of all, you have their withdrawal from the region. Aside from the normal problems of war and civil disobedience (which were pretty bad here simply because of the scale of the occupied region), you also have a huge demographic issue; religion. I've seen maps that show how many regions in Ottoman Europe that are now almost entirely Christian had Muslim majorities or pluralities, and almost all of them had at least a significant minority. Somehow, by death, emigration, population exchange, or forced conversion, these groups were entirely extinguished or drastically reduced, depending on the region in question. That alone is a demographic catastrophy. Add to that the wars the Ottomans frequently fought to keep these Balkan territories, and the chaos in the newly freed regions, and I'm pretty sure that we can agree that three seperate native states are unlikely to equal this level of demographic failure (this of course is omitting the 20th century, which was also terrible for the Balkans, what with them being in hte center of the world wars and then going communist).

One last point to add. Historically, we all know that France fell well behind the average for European population growth. Despite this, their population density is about 1.5 times that of Greece (306 per square mile compared to 212). Serbia and Albania are slightly better off (than Greece, they are all worse than France), Bosnia-Herzegovina is a little worse, and Bulgaria is drastically worse. That should say that at the very least they could do better, even while facing lots of war and demographic problems like France did (incidentally, that gave me a great idea for finding out how much I can realistically increase population by in my TL in certain regions).

Aside from demographics, competition among rival states is likely to be better for culture, industry, and economy than being a culturally repressed frontier backwater in a large empire, especially one that suffered considerable difficulties going into the modern era.

If you got through that post I applaud you (sorry for the length), but hopefully I managed to bring up at least a point or two worth considering.

 

[Elfwine]

OTL 1300-1900, or thereabouts.

The circumstances in AD 1500-1550 are not the same as AD 1700-1750, though.

I'd say it would be pretty hard to be worse than OTL 1800 onward in this regard, but 1500-1600 wasn't too bad. Not ideal, but I don't think anything like OTL would be ideal for just about anywhere.

Then my question is, why do you think that these rival powers are going to be constantly in a state of war 9or even one comperable to their OTL dificulties)? Constant war isn't cost effective, or even possible in most cases, and there were periods of later Byzantine history when they were peaceful with the Serbs and Bulgarians. I would say that the OTL 13th-14th century was a near absolute worst case scenario for establishing a peaceful Balkans. First we have the collapse of Byzantium, which leads to a power vacume, then we have the Latin Empire, which collapsed into a power vacume of its own almost immediately, then we have Bulgaria degenerating rapidly, with Byzantium following not too long after, then the rise of Serbia at the expense of these two, only for Serbia to fall itself, and then we have the Ottomans in Europe, the final collapse of Bulgaria, and a quick resurgence and re-collapse of Byzantium. Finally, we have an extremely tooth and nail conquest of the whole region by the Ottomans, who also forcibly induct a large percentage of their soldiers from the region.

All and all it is about two centuries of unrivalled collapse. We have six major collapses (an impressive three of them by Byzantium), all of them violent. If we have a PoD around 1300 (perhaps a little earlier, but after the Palaiologian restoration) then we can reasonably get rid of half of those problems. Without these rapid rises and collapses, I can see a decent status quo arising, and preventing any state of constant war.

While I agree that the constant collapses were anything but good for the region's future, Europe's history indicates very clearly that rivaling countries will be not-infrequently at war - especially when multiple states have a claim to the same area. It certainly would be more frequent than what would happen if any one stable power ruled the area.

As for what is so bad about Ottoman rule, I don't think they are drastically worse than any other foreign empire, but they definitely didn't try hard to help the Balkans (perfectly reasonable given how little it mattered to their ability to function as a nation, but not good for the Balkans). I definitely consider them to be a worse fate than a three way split of the region. As for why, for starters, we have the fact that under them, a majority of the region's population were treated as second class citizens. Not only did this make life more difficult for the natives (something likely to decrease birth rates in and of itself), it also stifled their culture, severed their trade ties, and increased emmigration away from the region.

The term "Second class citizens" when the alternative is the feudal system doesn't make a great deal of sense. Yes, Christians were all things being even treated as lower on the totem pole than Muslims. But the vast majority of the population would be peasants exploited by their local landlords, which was less of an issue under Ottoman rule (at least before its decline) than earlier. And their culture was hardly "stifled".

Trade ties? This I'd like to see some more specific information on. Constantinople obviously benefited from being an imperial capital of significance again, so we can ignore it, but why do you think that (say) Belgrade suffered overall here?

Emmigration? Ditto.

Very little attempt was made to industrially develop the area that I am aware of (if there was then it certainly wasn't successful), and it seems that the economy stagnated in general during their rule. The Ottoman habit of recruiting their soldiers from Christian families is, of course, bad for the region, because even if they survive they don't return home and contribute to the population.

And did they do better at this as independent nations?

As for the Ottomans recruiting from Christian families: And a Christian state is going to recruit from Christian families too. I am not sure if you're referring to the devşirme or recruitment in general, so I'm not sure how to comment beyond that - the former had less demographic impact but was more brutal.

Then, and perhaps worst of all, you have their withdrawal from the region. Aside from the normal problems of war and civil disobedience (which were pretty bad here simply because of the scale of the occupied region), you also have a huge demographic issue; religion. I've seen maps that show how many regions in Ottoman Europe that are now almost entirely Christian had Muslim majorities or pluralities, and almost all of them had at least a significant minority. Somehow, by death, emigration, population exchange, or forced conversion, these groups were entirely extinguished or drastically reduced, depending on the region in question. That alone is a demographic catastrophy. Add to that the wars the Ottomans frequently fought to keep these Balkan territories, and the chaos in the newly freed regions, and I'm pretty sure that we can agree that three seperate native states are unlikely to equal this level of demographic failure (this of course is omitting the 20th century, which was also terrible for the Balkans, what with them being in hte center of the world wars and then going communist).

That's more a problem of the violent dissolution of Ottoman rule than its actual presence. And for discussion's sake, I'm going to say that the 20th century in the Balkans is probably the worst case scenario - the 19th was ugly, but the 20th century was utter disaster.

One last point to add. Historically, we all know that France fell well behind the average for European population growth. Despite this, their population density is about 1.5 times that of Greece (306 per square mile compared to 212). Serbia and Albania are slightly better off (than Greece, they are all worse than France), Bosnia-Herzegovina is a little worse, and Bulgaria is drastically worse. That should say that at the very least they could do better, even while facing lots of war and demographic problems like France did (incidentally, that gave me a great idea for finding out how much I can realistically increase population by in my TL in certain regions).

France has some very good farmland. Greece . . . doesn't. I'm not sure how the other areas compare, but I think that would be a problem even under ideal conditions (not met OTL, thanks to the various disasters).

Aside from demographics, competition among rival states is likely to be better for culture, industry, and economy than being a culturally repressed frontier backwater in a large empire, especially one that suffered considerable difficulties going into the modern era.

Culturally repressed? Oh please. As religious minorities went in this era, I'd rather be a Christian Ottoman subject for most of the history of the Ottoman state than a Muslim anywhere in Europe or a Protestant in a Catholic state or vice-versa. Industry and economy . . . I'm really not sure about this. Especially since I've read that the Balkans weren't a backwater to the Ottomans, but I'd want to check where before arguing that one. But culturally, the Balkans were hardly squelched. Second class is better than actively persecuted noncitizen.

Not good by today's standards, but I'm not sure the average farmer anywhere between Portugal and Japan had anything we would compare favorably to today's standards.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

Elfwine, there's a lot of misconceptions about the Ottoman rule of the Balkans. This largely comes from the proliferation of the idea in Western literature that the Ottomans were fairly egalitarian in the beginning, which they were, by the poor standards of the time. But:

There was indeed a lot of raiding along border areas. This can be found in a lot of sources, but a good book to check out would be "Balkans: 1804-2012: Nationalism, War & the Great Powers" by Misha Glenny. The first chapter notes a rebellion against Ottoman control. Turkish rule in the Balkans was very poor. A lot of the people that supported it were converts to Islam, not the locals. The Turks were often extremely heavy-handed. There's a reason that their was so much discrimination against Bosnian Muslims. It was anti-Turkish sentiment. An Islamic presence in the Balkans was seen as a leftover of Turkish colonisation in the Balkans.

I don't get your logic about foreign powers jamming religion down peoples' throats. The Ottoman Empire did that, which is why (IIRC) Bulgaria was 40% Muslim before independence (60% in some areas) and Bosnia and Albania are still majority Muslim. The Austro-Hungarians ruled Slovenia and Croatia, which both had the same faith, and the Hungarian presence in places like Transylvania never took the prospect of conversion seriously (although a rigid class system was implemented in Transylvania).

A number of smaller Balkan states would be more stable, as they would lack the ability to defeat each other in full-scale wars, and would therefore create a balance of power, like the great powers did in Western Europe. It's not about how powerful you are, its about how powerful you are relative to the other actors in the area. Mass slaughter on the scale the Ottomans perpetrated would be infeasible.

 

[kasumigenx]

My opinion, a united Serbia and Bosnia is better, if the attempted annexation of Bosnia to Serbia was a success, I think Serbia might be more powerful.