Ottoman conquests in Europe

[CobraStallone]

I have a small doubt, how was religion and culture handled in the Turkish territories in Europe? Greece, Bulgaria,Wallachia etc.., Did the turks try to enforce Islam? Also, did significant numbers of Turkish or arab people went to live there? Thanks in advance to anyone that helps me with this.

[Xerrop]

Don´t know much about this, I can only give some basic facts about todays situation:
Many inhabitants of Bosnia and Albania converted to Islam during Ottoman rule - these are today (beside Turkey) the only muslimic countries in Europe.
And even today (after large emigration back to Turkey) around 10% of Bulgarias population are Turks. And I think in previous centuries there were also large communities of Turks in Greece.
But don´t think, that many Arabs settled in Europe - mostly Turks.

[Tiberios]

There were communities of Turks in what is now Greece. But after the Greek-Turkish war in 1920-1922, the two nations agreed to an exchange of population. All Greeks and some Armenians living in Asia Minor was exchanged for Turks living in Greece.

[gaius valerius]

I have a small doubt, how was religion and culture handled in the Turkish territories in Europe? Greece, Bulgaria,Wallachia etc.., Did the turks try to enforce Islam? Also, did significant numbers of Turkish or arab people went to live there? Thanks in advance to anyone that helps me with this.

They did not enforce their religion upon the native people. For example Orthodox communities had the right to enjoy their own religion, have their own religious laws, etc. The reality of the Ottoman Empire was that of a multi-ethnic empire, hence this approach. What was the case though, is that if you wanted to advance in the ranks of this empire, conversion was a necessity.

[AqD]

They did not enforce their religion upon the native people. For example Orthodox communities had the right to enjoy their own religion, have their own religious laws, etc. The reality of the Ottoman Empire was that of a multi-ethnic empire, hence this approach. What was the case though, is that if you wanted to advance in the ranks of this empire, conversion was a necessity.

But didn't they also lower the tax for muslims? (= extra tax for others ) or the policy was abandoned by turks?

[Dracula]

But didn't they also lower the tax for muslims? (= extra tax for others ) or the policy was abandoned by turks?

In theory the christians had to pay taxes which the muslims didn't have to and vice versa. In reality, everybody was taxed max. The muslims didn't have much better status.

[dogukan]

Well many of the people in Balkans say otherwise but as far as I know most historians accept that Ottomans did not enforce Islam. Though they treated non-Muslims sort of like second class citizens(well this is not modern world)....non-Muslims weren't forced to fight wars though, unlike Muslims. They only had to give a different extra tax. THey did however, were allowed to practice their religion.

Other than that Ottomans did try to contribute to there by bbuilding things which are mostly destroyed today. And a lot of Turks did settle in the region...Arabs? No
Hudnreds of thousands of Turks returned in the contnious wars, or were killed. Or converted and became assimilated.

[Eastern Roman]

Well many of the people in Balkans say otherwise but as far as I know most historians accept that Ottomans did not enforce Islam.

Liars trying to spoil your idea about Ottoman Empire

Though they treated non-Muslims sort of like second class citizens(well this is not modern world)....non-Muslims weren't forced to fight wars though, unlike Muslims. They only had to give a different extra tax. THey did however, were allowed to practice their religion.

"sort of", "different" Turkish attempts of making it look less bad are pathetic.

There were many Christians Greeks and Armenians in the government though for their administration and trade skills and I believe their religion was untouched.

i wonder why ?... it is because they served Sultan maybe ?

the Janissary issue is different....and children weren't forcibly taken in those cases. They were taken with the permission of families and the elders of the villages.

Do they teach you that crap in schools in Turkey? Apart of loads of historical data, there are lots of old folk songs in Serbia describing how “peaceful" those children were taken from their families.

Same in Greece. Well, using common sense it is pretty obvious that people were sooooooo glad to do that.

To some extend it is true. Greek patriarchs based in Fanar quarter of Istanbul (known as “fanariots”) had a long lasting deal with Ottomans. Keep population quiet and submissive and Turks were generous in granting privileges to fat bishops. Of course, it does not have anything with Christian moral values, and that is why fanariot became worst kind of pejorative moral term.

Orthodox priest did the same with the Nazies. They even sent letters to Hitler himself congratulating him and praise him

But look at the facts regarding the devsirme and not the nationalist folk songs.

Songs Created by common people were nationalistic songs!
Of course common Christian guys were practicing propaganda everyday in Balkans all the time.

According to Ottoman laws, bla bla bla bla bla bla

WHAT ? O REALY ?

IMO the erason Ottoman Turks are so much hated in the Balkans today are results of what happened during 18th and 19th centuries.

of course that's when finally the people in balkans gain their independence... that's when all the bad things happened.

The fact that all these years wanted their independence and finally got the chance when Ottoman Empire was at its downfall, are secondary causes.

[Erebus Pasha]

Songs Created by common people were nationalistic songs!
Of course common Christian guys were practicing propaganda everyday in Balkans all the time.

Stop being so dramatic. All that I was stating is that folk songs are not a source for historic facts.

[PointOfViewGun]

i wonder why ?... it is because they served Sultan maybe ?

What do you expect exactly? Do you expect Ottomans to just leave if they face resistance?

[PointOfViewGun]

Conversion did happen but mostly involved conquered nobles. The public was left to their own beliefs with additional taxes though. I haven't seen forced public conversion to Islam but if the leaders wanted more autonomy they probably converted to Islam which is something some fictional historic Turkish movies make fun of.

There were many Christians Greeks and Armenians in the government though for their administration and trade skills and I believe their religion was untouched. I'm not sure if they maintained their religion when they acquired government positions but there were surely many Armenian and Greeks in the government.

Not Arabs but Turks did got replaced in Eastern Europe in the process to Turkify the conquered regions.

[Kara Kolyo]

Machiel Kiel for example has studied the process of islamisation in some parts of Bulgaria and points out that in these regions there was no mass forced islamistaion but a steady slow process.

One of the big sources on the forced islamisation of the Rhodopes in 17cent.- The chronicle of priest Methody Draginov has been proved to be a late 19 cent. mystification by some local theachers etc.

There were however occasions when muslims would try to force some young man to convert. In Sofia for example we have several churches dedicated to such men who refused to convert and were killed. Such attempts or even "pogroms" were carried on generally after an ottoman defeat, or in cases like rebellions, wars etc.

Also lots of turkic people were sent to the Balkans and Bulgaria in particular, especially after some of the wars with Russia - tatars, cherkezs (sp?). Most of them however left after 1878, 1912 and 1989. In 1989 alone around 300 000 turks left Bulgaria. It is unclear however how many of the bulgarian turks are actual turks, roma, caucassian muslims etc. or just converted in the past.

[mircea]

I have a small doubt, how was religion and culture handled in the Turkish territories in Europe? Greece, Bulgaria,Wallachia etc.., Did the turks try to enforce Islam? Also, did significant numbers of Turkish or arab people went to live there? Thanks in advance to anyone that helps me with this.

The influence of Turkish culture and Islam differed substantially. For example, Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania (currently Romania) were tributary states (with brief, but often moments of open conflict with Turks) and as such, the Turksih influence is reduced to a few vocabulary words (peşcheş-gift, bribe, haraci - tribute, bacşiş - bribe, taifas - gossip, amanet, bidiviu - agile horse, ceiling, calcan - turbot, sofa, etc) or dishes (baclava, acadea, halva, ciulama, rahat, chiftea). Islam influence on the people of the three states is minimal, it was forbid to build any kind of Islamic building on the teritory of the three states, and it was forbidden for Muslims to buy land plots in the principalities. Only very few Romanians converted to Islam, some by force (captives) or some by interest (including a former prince of Moldavia - Ilias Rares, later Mehmet beg of Silistra). Quite large was the number of wealthy Muslims which (re-)converted to Christian religion, in order to be able to buy properties in Moldavia or Wallachia, or even in order to buy the throne of one principality (Mihnea Turcitul)

[il padrino]

not always,but there was forced islamization.
in serbia,little children used to be taken from their mothers,to be raised in turkey,as janissaries.churches were burned down,and plundered,farmers harassed.also serb church was "canceled" in a way,because turks considered it as great danger,and motivation in serb rebelions.

there is also this event,when turks burned the bones of our saint sava,the most famous saint in serbia.

[dogukan]

the Janissary issue is different....and children weren't forcibly taken in those cases. They were taken with the permission of families and the elders of the villages.

[4th Regiment]

the Janissary issue is different....and children weren't forcibly taken in those cases. They were taken with the permission of families and the elders of the villages.

Do they teach you that crap in schools in Turkey? Apart of loads of historical data, there are lots of old folk songs in Serbia describing how “peaceful" those children were taken from their families.

In latter period (of decline of Janissaries and Ottomans in general) however, many poorer Muslim families were voluntary giving their children, because it was well paid and corrupted job and there were no big conquests and wars anymore. Plus in that latter period, they were allowed to get married…

PS.About theme - there are no SINGLE church or monastery which was not partially or totally demolished by Turks or its material used to build mosque or something else. There are few famous monasteries which were stables for horses for example..In some, expensive copper or plumb roof was removed, monks were slathered and frescos were exposed to elements for decades….Leave that “multicultural society” crap for EU parliament, please...

[il padrino]

the Janissary issue is different....and children weren't forcibly taken in those cases. They were taken with the permission of families and the elders of the villages.

i can assure you that in the case of serbia,they were taken with force.even our writer ivo andric,who won the noble prize,described one of this events in his book "the bridge on river drina".it's mentioned even in our folk songs.

maybe the things were different in some other areas,but as i've said,it was like that in serbia.i don't say that the turks were that bad towards other people,but they were not angels too.

[PointOfViewGun]

I would say Serbian case is different as they have proved to be very rebellious and troublesome for the empire.

[Tiberios]

I would say Serbian case is different as they have proved to be very rebellious and troublesome for the empire.

Perhaps because they resented their churches being burnt by the Ottomans and being forced to live in an Empire they had no desire to live in?

[4th Regiment]

I would say Serbian case is different as they have proved to be very rebellious and troublesome for the empire.

To some extend it is true. Greek patriarchs based in Fanar quarter of Istanbul (known as “fanariots”) had a long lasting deal with Ottomans. Keep population quiet and submissive and Turks were generous in granting privileges to fat bishops. Of course, it does not have anything with Christian moral values, and that is why fanariot became worst kind of pejorative moral term.