What Broke the Balkans?

[Romano-Dacis]

I was recently reading Alexandru Madgearu's book The Wars of the Balkan Penninsula and I was wondering: why is the Balkan region so unstable? It seems like there are a lot of possible candidates:
-Being on the dividing line between the East-West Christian Schism.
-The Slavic invasions.
-The Ottoman policies in the region.
-The ambitions of three empires (Ottoman, Austrian, Russian) and the interference of other major powers (Britain, France, Germany).
-Geography (fragmented by mountains).
-The Balkan Wars of the 20th century
-Refusal of abandoning irredentas. (this could be more of a symptom)

So, just to get everyone to chime in: what historic event do you believe caused the greatest harm in the Balkans?

[Odovacar]

Ottoman rule for centuries. Sealed the coffin.

[Romano-Dacis]

Ottoman rule for centuries. Sealed the coffin.

Couldn't agree further. It seems evident that by the 1600's something was very wrong with the way the Balkans were run. The ambitions of the Habsburgs and Austro-Hungary did not help though.

How were the Balkans before the Ottomans? Were the Byzantine Balkans comparable to the feudal estates in Hungary or those in Western Europe in terms of development?

[Lysimachus]

Coming from a Hungarian it seems like you're trying to shift the blame from the K.u.K to the Ottomans. Care to explain?

[iudas]

Coming from a Hungarian it seems like you're trying to shift the blame from the K.u.K to the Ottomans. Care to explain?

The "K.u.K" also possessed many territories in Central Europe, none of which saw as much turmoil as the Balkans.
The blame is almost exclusively the Ottomans'. The way they let minor feudal lords (and, later, nation-states) quarrel over lands, for centuries. Their corrupt bureaucratic system, which likely owed much to their Byzantine predecessors.

[Salem1]

The "K.u.K" also possessed many territories in Central Europe, none of which saw as much turmoil as the Balkans.
The blame is almost exclusively the Ottomans'. The way they let minor feudal lords (and, later, nation-states) quarrel over lands, for centuries. Their corrupt bureaucratic system, which likely owed much to their Byzantine predecessors.

... kuk means dick in Swedish, I love the name of that army.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

I do not think there is one single historical event that one can isolate and throw all the blame onto.

Any area that is so ethnically diverse is more or less doomed to suffer such issues. Add religious differences to the mix and you have trully explosive stew. Each time something rises the temperature it will go boom.

Though if there was one thing I believe is the cause of the "Balkan problem" is the rise of nationalism. Sure not the cause of the problem but it proved to be a major catalyst.

[Romano-Dacis]

Though if there was one thing I believe is the cause of the "Balkan problem" is the rise of nationalism. Sure not the cause of the problem but it proved to be a major catalyst.

The thing that turned nationalism into a problem was the Ottoman domination, which saw the mixing of many ethnicities often done through very crude colonization methods. Albanians, Aromanians, Gypsies, and even Armenians, were spread everywhere throughout the Balkans.

Poor administration caused the flight of locals, which then resulted in colonization of other ethnicities to maintain economic output (though it was never maintained). This resulted in ethnically-mixed regions and coupled with nations that all saw themselves as inheritors of vast (re-awoken) tsardoms (Serbians, Bulgarians, Greeks) with overlapping borders was going to create an unstable situation. Nationalism may have been the spark, but the pieces were already in place at least since the Middle Ages.

[Erebus Pasha]

The thing that turned nationalism into a problem was the Ottoman domination, which saw the mixing of many ethnicities often done through very crude colonization methods. Albanians, Aromanians, Gypsies, and even Armenians, were spread everywhere throughout the Balkans.

Poor administration caused the flight of locals, which then resulted in colonization of other ethnicities to maintain economic output (though it was never maintained). This resulted in ethnically-mixed regions and coupled with nations that all saw themselves as inheritors of vast (re-awoken) tsardoms (Serbians, Bulgarians, Greeks) with overlapping borders was going to create an unstable situation. Nationalism may have been the spark, but the pieces were already in place at least since the Middle Ages.

But I think these problems only really came to light when Ottoman power declined in the region from the late 17th century onwards, and then you had added on top the ambitions of the Hapsburgs and the Russian Tsars in the region. Prior to this the dominance of the Ottomans in the region meant that the Balkans were rather stable even if they were underlying tensions and imperfect governance.

[Exarch]

exactly how did the russians get involved? with serbia and alla that i mena?
i want details

thanks

[Carpathian Wolf]

The Balkans had the possibility to throw off the Turkish yoke in the medieval era quite a few times but the intervention from the west often acted as a double sided sword. How much progress did men like Mircea cel Batran, Stefan cel Mare, Vlad Tepes, Mihai Viteazul and many others have against the Turks only to have Austrians, Hungarians, Polish and Germans try to take a bite out of the lands from behind. So really the problem was getting stuck between west and east, the Vatican and the Caliph and their power games.

But that was the past. We could even talk concerning World War 2 where the Balkans were sold to Russia on a paper napkin by the west. Communism has done some serious sociological and political damage to the Balkans. Even so I generally find the people individually a lot more stable and coherent, warmer and all around more alive.

Like the serbian territotry Kosovo was populated with muslims during the ottoman rule.

Was actually 50 Albanian 50 Serb before WW2.

[Razor]

I do not think there is one single historical event that one can isolate and throw all the blame onto.

Any area that is so ethnically diverse is more or less doomed to suffer such issues. Add religious differences to the mix and you have trully explosive stew. Each time something rises the temperature it will go boom.

Though if there was one thing I believe is the cause of the "Balkan problem" is the rise of nationalism. Sure not the cause of the problem but it proved to be a major catalyst.

And who were for a huge part responsible for the bad "mixing" of cultures and religions? The Ottomans. The rise of nationalism ignited the explosives...

[Odovacar]

Coming from a Hungarian it seems like you're trying to shift the blame from the K.u.K to the Ottomans. Care to explain?

K.u:k started to intervene into matters in late 19th century.
Already the Balkans was divided heavily. The medieval terriories were populated with different peoples in new age. Like the serbian territotry Kosovo was populated with muslims during the ottoman rule.
Before ottomans the Balkans was not divided in religion, only between croats and serbians were differences.

And if you continue this Austro-Hungarian-trashing we can talk about an empire which supported pirates, dealt with drugs, slaves and made the first concentration camps...

A-H wanted a piece from the Balkans. True, we had nothing to search there. Just like the russians, and invaders of the Balkans.
But the first one to cast a stone should be someone with no crime, no imperialistic ambition ever. Thus french, english, german, italian, japan, chinese, russian, american will surely not cast that stone.

(As for "responsibility" I have no responsibility whatsoever in any people's misery. Austria-Hungary was not the best empire. It was filled with snobism, opression, enmity, corruption, foolery. But A-h left her marks on history. Just take a walk in Central-Europe. So A-.H doesn't need defenders, she can stand on her own legs.)

[iudas]

K.u:k started to intervene into matters in late 19th century.

I don't get what you mean by that. You can trace their intervention to the 16th century at latest, when the Habsburgs started fighting the Turks.

[Odovacar]

I don't get what you mean by that. You can trace their intervention to the 16th century at latest, when the Habsburgs started fighting the Turks.

Yeah, but before that Hungary alone already intervened in balkanian matters.
Everyone in the proximity intervened in the Balkans (and everywhere they could) That's politics.
As for the 16th century, I don't think people really minded that Habsburgs intervened.

I mean, most christians were looking for being liberated from ottomans. Later, nationalism was rising though, and the emerging little countries didn't want to see foreigners.
Especially because foreign help had always a price tag attached to it, and because these new countries had ambitions too.

[Nikitn]

K.u:k started to intervene into matters in late 19th century.
Already the Balkans was divided heavily. The medieval terriories were populated with different peoples in new age. Like the serbian territotry Kosovo was populated with muslims during the ottoman rule.
Before ottomans the Balkans was not divided in religion, only between croats and serbians were differences.

And if you continue this Austro-Hungarian-trashing we can talk about an empire which supported pirates, dealt with drugs, slaves and made the first concentration camps...

A-H wanted a piece from the Balkans. True, we had nothing to search there. Just like the russians, and invaders of the Balkans.
But the first one to cast a stone should be someone with no crime, no imperialistic ambition ever. Thus french, english, german, italian, japan, chinese, russian, american will surely not cast that stone.

(As for "responsibility" I have no responsibility whatsoever in any people's misery. Austria-Hungary was not the best empire. It was filled with snobism, opression, enmity, corruption, foolery. But A-h left her marks on history. Just take a walk in Central-Europe. So A-.H doesn't need defenders, she can stand on her own legs.)

Austria Hungary contained a ridiculous amount of ethnicities which wanted to break free. To remain in the region, they had to provoke the ethnicities to hate and fight each other, instead of their common enemy Austria. This was how the balance of power was maintained.

The Austrian imperialist policies were the chief cause of the Balkan mess. Not the Ottoman ones (where the provinces had near complete autonomy).

So saying Austria "- Hungary" was completely innocent, while it is all the Turks fault, is just stupid.

[Lord Claremorris]

Ah the Balkans....Yes, they were very unstable and rickety. I attribute this first off the the Slavic migrations that so disturbed the ethnic composition of the Peninsula. Slavs wedged in here and there, bounded by Greeks to the South, Hungarians to the North, Romanians to the East. Second, is of course the Ottoman Empire's eruption into South-East Europe. The Turks brought with them their religion and many of their people, inhabiting Thrace and Constantinople, and converting the Albanians and Bosnians. Their laws which so favoured muslims caused peoples who remained Orthodox Christian to despise those formerly Christian people who converted just to get a leg up on their neighbors (i.e. Albanians). Next is the impossibilty of any nation achieving homogeneity, since there are Magyars in Romania, Romanians in Bulgaria, Bulgarians in Turkey, Turks in Greece, Greeks in Albania, Albanians in Serbia, Serbs in Croatia etc. And this is no melting pot where cultures can be assimilated, the Turks remained very distinct from those they ruled, and the Europeans remained as different as they always were, Greeks and Romanians despising Slavs, and Slavs despising them.

Now, the solution would arguably be a union of South Slavs, but Russia botched that creating a massive independent Bulgaria, and the smaller "Yugoslavia" was botched by the Serbs and their murderous leaders. Now there is little hope for that.

But I'd say the thing that caused War in the Balkans was above all decline. Nature abhors vacuums and as the Byzantine Empire expired it was taking advantage of by the Italians and Catalans, and then finished off by the Turks. As the Turks started to die nations sprang up, greedy for Turkish lands, and as Austria began to crumble the same thing happened. The rapid collapse of both Austria and Turkey, as well as Russia, created a huge vacuum that had to be filled, and filled it was haphazardly and leaving much animosity.

[Odovacar]

Austria Hungary contained a ridiculous amount of ethnicities which wanted to break free. To remain in the region, they had to provoke the ethnicities to hate and fight each other, instead of their common enemy Austria. This was how the balance of power was maintained.

The nationalities were already quarelling with each other. Did they need Bosnia to make romanians, slovakians, serbs, croatians and hungarians to hate each other? They already hated each other (mainly the hungarians together) in 1848.

Your conspiracy theory is just a fail. Reality is much more simple: Austria was an empire. all empires need to enlarge their territories and gain prestige and wealth from usurped colonies.
Austria couldn't gain colonies on the overseas. She was beaten out of Germany. Now she turned against the Balkans. That's where A-H ran into Russia as a rival. The more you know.

(Needless to mention the hungarian kingdom, a precedessor of the A. empire, always sought expansion on the balkans besides Halych.)

The Austrian imperialist policies were the chief cause of the Balkan mess. Not the Ottoman ones (where the provinces had near complete autonomy).

Add to it the Russian imperialism which was characterized by Bakunin very well. Bakunin had the opinion that its very stupid what panslavist wished: that russian whips would bring happiness to them.

Balkan was a mess already when austria entered the scene. It was not Austria who changed the populace. It was not Austria who brought muslim religion in the balkans too.
And Russia's ideologically covered ambitions helped a lot to bring havoc to the place. Of course as russian you will never admit that. Russia just wanted to bring peace and happiness to the slavic brothers....

So saying Austria "- Hungary" was completely innocent, while it is all the Turks fault, is just stupid.

And who did say that?

[Nikitn]

The nationalities were already quarelling with each other. Did they need Bosnia to make romanians, slovakians, serbs, croatians and hungarians to hate each other? They already hated each other (mainly the hungarians together) in 1848.

Your conspiracy theory is just a fail. Reality is much more simple: Austria was an empire. all empires need to enlarge their territories and gain prestige and wealth from usurped colonies.
Austria couldn't gain colonies on the overseas. She was beaten out of Germany. Now she turned against the Balkans. That's where A-H ran into Russia as a rival. The more you know.

Just stop. Please. The claim that Austria provoked the ethnicities to hate other to maintain their presence is a fact, and it is completely logical. It is undeniable, and not some conspiracy theory. I know that there were tensions before, but after Austria started their policies, it all exploded.

(Needless to mention the hungarian kingdom, a precedessor of the A. empire, always sought expansion on the balkans besides Halych.)

The Hungarian kingdom was annexed by Austria. It wasn't a predecessor, but a province.

Add to it the Russian imperialism which was characterized by Bakunin very well. Bakunin had the opinion that its very stupid what panslavist wished: that russian whips would bring happiness to them.

Balkan was a mess already when austria entered the scene. It was not Austria who changed the populace. It was not Austria who brought muslim religion in the balkans too.
And Russia's ideologically covered ambitions helped a lot to bring havoc to the place. Of course as russian you will never admit that. Russia just wanted to bring peace and happiness to the slavic brothers....



And who did say that?

What are you trolling about now? Russia wanted the Balkans in 19th century so that they could capture Constantinople (and almost did). It was a wet dream seance 18th century. Supporting Serbia in 20th century was not about conquering all of Balkans, stealing it from great, innocent Austria-Hungary...

Seriously I don't know if your serious or if you are trying to provoke me..

PS. Pretty much all of you blamed the Turks for the Balkans. Which is completely incorrect.

[iudas]

Just stop. Please. The claim that Austria provoked the ethnicities to hate other to maintain their presence is a fact, and it is completely logical. It is undeniable, and not some conspiracy theory. I know that there were tensions before, but after Austria started their policies, it all exploded.

...

PS. Pretty much all of you blamed the Turks for the Balkans. Which is completely incorrect.

Austria acted according to its own interests. It did plenty of harm indeed. But it was the Ottoman domination that ed up the Balkans beyond repair. The Ottomans, above all, brought a sort of tribal mentality to the provinces they ruled, a primitive and corrupt, decentralised and savage bureaucracy.