Why the Balkans was never Turkified

[rad_vsovereign]

It is always seem amazing for me that the majority of Balkan peninsula, which was ruled by OE for five centuries, was never Turkified. Only Bosnia did.

On the other hand, Asia Minor was wrested form the Byzantines in 1071 and in a hundred years or so is solidly Turkish.

I think the reason is because in Anatolia between 1071 and the reign of Bayazid I there were a LOT of emirates...people who care more about themselves and the land the lived from.

Beys who invited even more turks to settle in his domain, turks who think of it as their country and turkish peasants who beget more peasants.

On the contrary, since the beginning there was only ONE emirate in Balkan, that of the Ottomans.

Absentee landlords, centralized administrations, etc. It might have adverse effect on the population movements.

Abdul stated that before the last Russo-Turkish War, Balkan was around 44% Turkish (that is, Muslim) and after that it was even moreso. It did not explain how OE failed to turkified the Balkans between them taking Gallipoli (1354) and the defeat of 1878. Five centuries!

This is just some guess on my part though. I would welcome other thoughts.

Rad

 

[Ridwan Asher]

Somehow, I feel that Mehmed II was mainly responsible for that, by reestablishing the Patriarch of Constantinople in order to appease the Greek Orthodox population....

 

[carlton_bach]

I think a major part of that is perception. Asia Minor was not completely Turkified until - well, today, really. In Ottoman days, it retained large and accepted Kurdish, Greek and Armenian populations. Conversely, the Balkans had a large Turkish population, too, just not as large. So the historical difference (before the various population exchanges, ethnic cleansings, national schooling and language laws) was likely more on the oder of 60% versus 40% rather than as absolute as itz looks today.

Then there is the different historical context. The Turks came to Asia Minor in search of land to settle. They expanded into the Balkans as a hegemonic power. That makes for different settlement patterns by itself.

 

[von Adler]

Also, islamic law forbids charging too much taxes. The Ottomans could tax their christian subjects more than their muslim counterparts and thus had an interest that the people of the Balkans remained christian.

 

[carlton_bach]

Also, islamic law forbids charging too much taxes. The Ottomans could tax their christian subjects more than their muslim counterparts and thus had an interest that the people of the Balkans remained christian.

True, but the same applied in Asia Minor.

 

[von Adler]

Yeah, but in those days there were no central power. The turks migrated into Asia Minor on their own.

 

[Dan1988]

Actually, I would argue that to some degree, the Balkans WERE Turkified, to an extent. They may or may not have been Muslim, but the Ottomans DID have an impact on the local cultures to such a degree that it is now hard to separate what was Turkified and what was not - those areas closest to Anatolia, such as Greece and Bulgaria, even MORE so.

 

[danielbd]

It really depends on what "turkified" means. Albanians and Bosniaks are mainly Muslim but that does not make them Turks, it just makes them Muslim. After all, as stated previously, it is hard to describe what the Turkish nation was before the 20th century.

To Dan1988... The same could be said about the Turks receiving Greek, Armenian, Slavic etc influences. The cultural influence was definetely not one sided.

And even in Anatoia i am sure a large percentage of the population is made up of converted Anatolians and later colonists from other regions rather than of Turkic nomads.

 

[Ran Exilis]

And even in Anatoia i am sure a large percentage of the population is made up of converted Anatolians and later colonists from other regions rather than of Turkic nomads.

Indeed - after the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia, there were also plenty of Persians and Arabs among the Muslims who emigrated to the recently conquered territories.

And there was another major influx of Turkic tribes into Anatolia during the Mongol age - even during five or six centuries of Ottoman rule, the Balkans simply never really had an influx of ethnic Turks like that.

 

[Valdemar II]

Also, islamic law forbids charging too much taxes. The Ottomans could tax their christian subjects more than their muslim counterparts and thus had an interest that the people of the Balkans remained christian.

Not a good a idea to do in the borderland, where the population could rise up in support of invading armies, plus the Balkan states would defend themselves a lot more against Ottoman expantion if they tried something like this.

 

[Keenir]

Actually, I would argue that to some degree, the Balkans WERE Turkified, to an extent. They may or may not have been Muslim, but the Ottomans DID have an impact on the local cultures to such a degree that it is now hard to separate what was Turkified and what was not - those areas closest to Anatolia, such as Greece and Bulgaria, even MORE so.

agreed.

and at the risk of inciting flames, large parts of the Balkans actually got rid of their Turks/Turcified populations -- ie Greece (population transfer) and Bulgaria (slaughtered them).

 

[Dan1988]

To Dan1988... The same could be said about the Turks receiving Greek, Armenian, Slavic etc influences. The cultural influence was definetely not one sided.

And even in Anatoia i am sure a large percentage of the population is made up of converted Anatolians and later colonists from other regions rather than of Turkic nomads.

I would quite agree with that as well, especially since (because the Sultan had the title of "Sultan of Rum") it could be argued that the Ottoman Empire, religion aside, could be seen as a continuation of the Roman Empire. Since the Roman Empire was multicultural (despite the power base being in the Italian peninsula), it seems that it would only be natural for something similar to happen in the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul (Constantinople/Byzantium), for example, would probably have been a mosaic (and, to a degree, the melting pot) of different cultures throughout the Empire, which would have made it THE cosmopolitan city (and centre) of the Empire. Hence, for example, there would have been a cultural exchange that would have taken place that would've meant that not one culture in the Ottoman Empire would have survived without being "Turkified", "Hellenized", "Slavic-ized", etc. For example, focusing on the Balkans here, what other reasons could there have been OTHER than cultural exchange for the Balkan linguistic union, which arguably could also include the Turkish language in there as well?

 

[Dan1988]

It really depends on what "turkified" means. Albanians and Bosniaks are mainly Muslim but that does not make them Turks, it just makes them Muslim. After all, as stated previously, it is hard to describe what the Turkish nation was before the 20th century.

That I would also agree with as well.

 

[Broz]

the whole of the Balkan is very much "turkified", or at least as much as you could say India is "anglicanized" probably more so

just look at all the turkish words, customs, coffee, architecture, mentality, music, food ...etc...

obviously much of the Ottoman influence was rejected violently during and after the uprisings and the later Balkan wars, but they couldnt erase 500 years of cultural hegemony

 

[Dan1988]

the whole of the Balkan is very much "turkified", or at least as much as you could say India is "anglicanized" probably more so

just look at all the turkish words, customs, coffee, architecture, mentality, music, food ...etc...

obviously much of the Ottoman influence was rejected violently during and after the uprisings and the later Balkan wars, but they couldnt erase 500 years of cultural hegemony

My point exactly. My work here is done.

 

[rad_vsovereign]

A lot of misunderstanding here. What I meant as Turkified is, of course, Muslim. Because back then you couldn't be otherwise.

Turkified as in you take their customs. I would say that the Bosnians & Albanians took Turkish culture.

What I never understand is why the Balkans never become a heartland of the Empire the way Anatolia is. Also, how come you got Bosnia & Albania (Skanderberg, etc) Turkified but Bulgaria not??

It's like Byzantium all over again, they lost the Balkans but hold onto Asia Minor...

 

[danielbd]

A lot of misunderstanding here. What I meant as Turkified is, of course, Muslim. Because back then you couldn't be otherwise.

Turkified as in you take their customs. I would say that the Bosnians & Albanians took Turkish culture.

What I never understand is why the Balkans never become a heartland of the Empire the way Anatolia is. Also, how come you got Bosnia & Albania (Skanderberg, etc) Turkified but Bulgaria not??

It's like Byzantium all over again, they lost the Balkans but hold onto Asia Minor...

First you said that you meant Muslims by Turks and then you said that Turkified means taking in their customs (as in language and national awareness) ?? Which one is it then?

And as said previously by others, the Balkans were the centre of power for the Ottomans during the first period of Ottoman rule. A large part of the revenues came from these provinces because they were more taxable and rich than some other provinces. The capital was Istanbul after all, and before that had been Adrianople, and before that Bursa which is a short distance away from the Balkans. There were milions of Muslims/"Turks" (and there still are) in the European provinces but a lot were driven out or killed..... like the Ottomans themselves had done to some parts of the Balkans or Anatolia during their arrival.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Filling in for Abdul I would mention that the consistent pattern of nationalism and of ethnic cleansing certainly helped to reduce the Turkish influence in the Balkans.

Almost every time the Ottoman Turks lost an area, especially in Greece, the Turkish minority would invariably be expelled, following which the government would launch an intense campaign to rename everything, or rerename if you prefer, and indoctrinate the proper language, history and culture in the remaining population.

It's one of the reasons the Turks to this day are rather cold about human rights issues, inquiring where all this concern was when they were the ones being ethnically cleansed.

 

[danielbd]

It's one of the reasons the Turks to this day are rather cold about human rights issues, inquiring where all this concern was when they were the ones being ethnically cleansed.

I personally find this logic disgusting. Stating that they are the original victims is just wrong. The Muslims invaded,occupied,sacked,plundered and submited the populations of Anatolia and the Balkans to secondary citizen status for 400 years. But this whole logic of who started it first should be discarded... since a crime is a crime, it doesn't matter if it is a retaliation or else.
The de-Turkification that took place is also sickening... for example in Dobrogea where i live, most Tatar/Turkish villages and towns have been renamed from their original names to "Stephen the Great" or "Michael the Brave", personalities that hade no direct impact on the region's history, and part of the Muslim population has been expelled or left (although on a much smaller scale than most other regions).

But these acts should not be used as an excuse for human rights violations or not admiting crimes that happened in the past.

 

[Keenir]

A lot of misunderstanding here. What I meant as Turkified is, of course, Muslim. Because back then you couldn't be otherwise.

the Khazars were Turks (Jewish), and there are Turkish tribes in both eastern Russia/Siberia and southwestern Russia who are traditionally Christian.