Were the Balkans better off under Ottoman rule in terms of stability and prosperity, Veeky Forums?

Were the Balkans better off under Ottoman rule in terms of stability and prosperity, Veeky Forums?

Attached: Karte_Suedosteuropa_03_01.png (596x383, 61K)

Other urls found in this thread:


They weren't.

Austria >>> Ottoman Empire.


Why not tho?

The whole world would be a hundred years ahead had the Ottomans won at Vienna.

How can you have prosperity when the Ottoman empire is stuck in medieval times? Balkan states had neither a Renaissance nor an Age of Enlightenment. They may have owned property technically but in reality they owned nothing. Read what Dostoevsky had to say, even though he had bias.


t. urk

But the Ottomans were very progressive for their time and came equipped with all that Arab golden age knowledge from Baghdad and Spain. Even that they started sucking in the 18th century is considered a meme by historians

Unquestionably not. The Ottomans fucked the Balkans worse than the Soviets fucked half of Europe.

No, Mehmet

Yeah, just look at them now.


Attached: AAAAAAAA.jpg (298x169, 6K)

>hurr durr BOL BE GON

Attached: IMG_0077.jpg (1270x1136, 78K)

Until the 17th century sure but after that not so.

You can literally trace a near perfect shit zone around the territories the Ottomans held on to the longest.

Attached: B846424D-E7B5-4210-BD07-0727E98E10A0.jpg (2544x1142, 498K)

Look at this picture. Try to guess which region was in the Ottoman Empire and which in Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Attached: 1.jpg (1832x1685, 966K)

Well, it's pretty well known that Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and parts of Vojvodina were part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire after the demise of the Turkish empire. Still as you probably know, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro (Kosovo too but it is disputed to be a country) have quite a lot muslims

No, your post is just western revisionist memes, I'm sorry. They were backward savages that halted cultural development by centuries by treating non-muslims as second-hand folk.

t. Suleiman Pasha

Not sure, but I'm fairly positive that the rest of Europe was far better off with the Balkan under Turkish rule. I wonder if they'd take it back if we ask nicely.

I'm not too sure about the subject but from what I think, Stability yes, equality and freedom, no.

Obviously there was no internal strife between the people of the Balkans, but at the same time you have an empire that imposed extra taxes on you for following a religion which is not and Islam and constantly abducted your children for extra Janissaries.

Even for medieval times that's kind of dickish.

t. Mehmed

Real balkans were never Ottoman. Only the orthodox soyboys succumbed to them

Bosnia was Austro Hungarian only in anf
after 1878 (de facto). Coastal Croatia was Venetian untill 1804. Northern Serbia, which along with continental Croatia and entire Slovenia were always Austrian (north serbia was occupied for a short time in 16-17thcentury, as some parts of continental Croatia)

God no. They are the only country that actually rivals the Russians in cancerous imperialism, and it was only due to the fact that their continued existence marginally blocked Russia from growing stronger that Western Europe didn’t kick them out of the Balkans centuries before their empire finally imploded.

You’d be hard pressed to find any sort redeeming aspect to the Ottomans controlling anything after about the 17th century other than cockblocking Russia. They may have arguably had a slight calming influence on general Islamic Doctrine during their existence, but the act of preserving and propagating Islam continues to be 100% a bad thing, and the Ottomans were a major part of that.

slavs will say no, but yeah

while the ottomans weren't good when was the balkans ever good? it seems it's just balkanites being balkanites




2/3rd of Balkan population died off from 15th till 19th century. You tell me.

The Ottoman Empire did only one thing wrong with the Balkans and that was not eradicate Balkaniggers and populate it with a better peoples. It would have saved the west from their eternal self-hatred they project onto other Balkaniggers.

>Ottomans controlled Bosnia and Montenegro in 1914

[citation needed]

t. le obese cigar Anglo

>According to Halil İnalcık, "The population of the Balkans, according to one estimate, fell from a high of 8 million in the late 16th-century to only 3 million by the mid-eighteenth. This estimate is in harmony with the first findings based on Ottoman documentary evidence."[85]

Strange, for the lands that were inhabited by Bulgarians, the sources point in the opposite direction - an increase in the number of villages and an increase in the taxes, from the second half of 15th century (first Ottoman records of the region) through 18th.

[citation needed]
I intentionally picked a Turkish author so you wouldn't argue for bias.
If it makes you feel better I don't blame the Turks, and I don't think Ottomans directly tried to fuck up their Christian subjects. On the contrary.
But ineffective central government led to rise of local shitheads who broke the population.
So Ottoman Empire was shit for those involved, but not because of Ottoman policies, but rather lack of them, or lack of power of central government.
Of course, certain traits of Ottoman dynasty played a role in this.

Machiel Kiel - People and settlements - has his essays, specifically Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period, International Journal of Turkish studies, 1989.

It's been some time since I read about it, but I'm pretty sure it was one of his essays that I read about the demographic changes of Sofia and Vidin regions 15-17th centuries.

Eastern Roman Empire.
Tito's Yugoslavia.

Also note that "Balkanites" who were under Austro-Hungarian rule are now the most prosperous Slavic countries while the ones under Ottoman rule are the shittiest.

And I'm not the guy you replied to at first. I don't accuse you of anything, just wanted to share what I've heard/read.

If by "local shitheads" you are referring to the kardzhalii (bandits) of the 18-19th century, that's a different story.

I referred to local nobles, but sure, that was an issue too.

Man, sometimes I wish we were more like the Spanish or English. We did not manage to assimilate the natives, we literally left nothing back except some Arabic-Persian loanwords.

Attached: 135780a87685526d68492a49bc4eb9cf.jpg (1560x1766, 357K)

The ayani, who were the local nobles, were the necessary connection between the average Ivan and the Ottoman state. The state would ask the nobles what people to hire for an upcoming campaign. Often times when a Christian village could not pay its annual taxes, it would ask the local ayani for financial help.

>We did not manage to assimilate the natives

The Ottoman empire wasn't actively trying to convert its population to Islam, if we have to be completely honest.

I dont want to be a jerk. I know every nation wants independence, wants to continue their existence and so on, but this was our mistake. The Ottoman Empire literally just invaded a region, collected the taxes, and left. We did not spread the Turkish language, culture, nothing, and like you said, not even Islam. In fact, the Ottoman Empire wanted them to stay Christian because they were paying more taxes. In the end, Arabs, Kurds, Zazas, Armenians, Slavs, Greeks, Albanians just started revolts, the Russians and European powers supported and used the minorities and the Ottoman Empire ended just in a big civil war from 1821 to 1923.

Anyway I just acquired this book and I'm about to read it.

Yeah but don't take it personally, most places were.

Oh, Islam did spread. Certain regions (Thrace, NE Bulgaria, Kardzhali) were colonized, meaning Muslims were settled there from outside, because there was a demographic vacuum in these regions. Islam spread in the cities as well. Mosques were built, hammams were built, cervansarais were built, bezistens were built. But the non-Muslim part of the empire was forbidden from entering the state apparatus, they were unable to join the bureaucracy because of their faith. Thus they had no motivation to learn how to write. At the time of the liberation of Bulgaria, 1878, about 4% of the population was literate, and I'm sure other regions of the Balkans were in the same condition.

And the real problems were economy-related.

Is there an English version of it? I only have a copy in Bulgarian of it. If you speak the language, I can give you some more titles and pdfs.

Did the ottomans actually treated their conquered subjects fairly or were they complete dicks about it?

Attached: ackbarallahs.png (485x443, 22K)

You mean the 'iskan siyaseti'. Yes, this happened. But not allways to 'colonize'. II. Bayezid and other Sultans also forced rebellious Turkmens such as the followers of Odman Baba to settle in Serbia and Albania, where they got mostly assimilated, or got killed.

You literally just had to pay taxes, and stay loyal. For much else the government did not care.

No I meant this book by İnalcık. I just got the population decline thing from it, I didn't read it.
How did Turkmens get killed?

Northern Europeans were generally filthy barbarian retards until Southern European empires introduced early technologies, ideas, and infrastructure to them.

There is no reasonable explanation for why the Balkans should suck as hard that you can just attribute to the idea that they’re inferior people. They are surrounded in a circle of countries that are much higher developed than they are. The Ottomans and Russians have continually isolated them from the cultural and technological benefits of being near Western Europe during the explosion of modern advancement.

The Ottomans didn’t treat them badly, but they did a disservice to them by occupying that land instead of letting Austria manage the region.

Greece would look so much better if eastern Thrace was Greek

Actually I'm pretty sure all of the Balkan population died off from the 15th to 19th century

The time when filthy roaches are expelled from europe forever will come.

Fun read.
>Since my letter of yesterday I have supped full of horrors. Nothing has as yet been said of the Turks that I do not now believe; nothing could be said of them that I should not think probable and likely. There is, it seems, a point in atrocity beyond which discrimination is impossible, when mere comparison, calculation, measurement are out of the question, and this point the Turks have already passed. You can follow them no further. The way is blocked up by mountains of hideous facts that repel scrutiny and investigation, over and beyond which you can not see and do not care to go. You feel that it is superfluous to continue measuring these mountains and deciding whether they be a few feet higher or lower, and you do not care to go seeking for molehills among them. You feel that it is time to turn back; that you have seen enough.
How do you have an internet collection in s. Dzhelepsko?

>We did not manage to assimilate the natives
because the ottomans couldn't, they conquered already existing civilizations with a written language and a history

the same reason the colonial powers couldn't assimilate arabs and indians