Defining Balkans

[CiviC]

Balkans is togehter with Italy and Iberia one of the three Suthern great European peninsulas. Geographically it's relatively easy to define Balkans : it's limits are Adriatic Sea, Mediteranean Sea and Black Sea and to the North, the Danube, Sava and Kupa rivers

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But beside geography, Balkans is a historical, cultural and geopolitical region.
So the question is : What defines Balkans as a historical, cultural and geopolitical concept? What are the common features that this region share and Balkans as a geopolitical concept is identical with the geographic concept? Countries that have only a part or a small part of their territory in Balkans, like Romania (Dobrogea), Croatia (Dalamatia), Turkey (Eastern Thrace) or Slovenia are also part of Balkans?

I have my own opinions but for the time I would like not to influence the debate by posting them on OP so I would like to hear your opinions.

P.S. I don't blame you if you use Wiki as a source for information but please don't post here just to repeat infos already available on Wiki.

[Akrotatos]

Balkans are simply all the countries in the peninsula plus those that were under the Ottoman yoke and Turkey. You can't say Romania is not Balkan since it's very similar to the rest in experiences and traditions.

[CiviC]

Balkans are simply all the countries in the peninsula plus those that were under the Ottoman yoke and Turkey. You can't say Romania is not Balkan since it's very similar to the rest in experiences and traditions.

So Hungary is in Balkans too, by your definition?
As for similar experiences ...
First of all, excluding Dobrogea, Romania was never part of Byzantine Empire proper, while all Balkans were part of it. Byzantium only influenced Romanian principalities regarding religion, culture and political traditions, but the same can be said about Kievean Rus and Russia, and they are not definitely in Balkans. On the other hand all Balkanic countries have a history closely linked with Byzantium in Middle Ages, so in this aspect they had a common experience.
The same can be said about Ottoman Empire. Romanian Principalities had a different experience from Balkans because they were never completely subjugated but only vassals; while Balkans were mere provinces with pashas at their head and subject to Islamisation and colonisation by Turks, Romanian Principalities had the privilege to keep their internal statal organisation and political Christian elites, to be ruled only by Christian princes and very important, no mosque was allowed to be built and no Turk to be colonised on their territory.

Balkans is caracterised by extreme fragmentation, in geography, ethnicities and religion with the result of many small and conflictual states. Romania is on the other hand the result of a process opposed to that of Balkans, meaning unification, resulting in a rather large state (compared with Balkans), not so fragmented in geography considering its size (only three natural regions, each as large as a medium Balkanc country), very homogenous ethnically and religiously (with the exception of Transylvania). Also Romanian history is not caracterised by ethnic and religious bloody conflicts or population shifts, as much as it was the case of Balkans, even in Transylvania (this doesn't mean things were always perfect).

Also situating Slovenia in Balkans only because it was part of Yougoslavia it's a bit extreme. For most of its history Slovenia was part of HRE, and its historical and cultural traditions go to that part. For Romania only its southern part, Wallachia has a Balkanic influence (because neighbours influence eachother) but this does not make it Balkanic in the true sense. Transilvania clearly belongs culturally to Central Europe, while Moldavia belongs more to Eastern Europe and in no way to Balkans. As a whole I would say Romania is a country with Balkanic influences but not in Balkans. I would say Croatia is also a country with Balkanic influences but not a traditional Balkanic country because it was always oriented to the West not Balkans (being a Catholic country, being dominated by Hungary, Habsburgs and Venice, etc.)

[barbarossa pasha]

One important difference between the Balkans and the rest of Europe is that it is primarily East Orthodox or Islamic and not Catholic or Protestant. This is the result of the Byzantine and Ottoman heritage.

The Balkans are interesting because the relatively tolerant attitude of the Ottoman Empire prevented the homogenization of the region, as a result there is an intense mixing of languages, ethnic groups, and religions that are difficult to reconcile or amalgamate into national states. These sorts of divisions cause conflict in other areas of the world, the Balkans are just a relatively extreme and geographically compact instance of it.

[Stavroforos]

Geographically it's relatively easy to define Balkans, like in your map. But I personally am of the opinion that culturally, Balkans means and implies the Slavic states within the Balkan peninsula, thus excluding Greece, Albania, Romania, and Turkey.

[Aru]

It's all a bunch of nonsense.

First for geography.

Peninsula's are not defined by rivers and mountains, but by sea, a peace of land surrounded in three sides by it.
By geographical terms, Balkan peninsula is something like this:



I would put the line somewhere lover on Black Sea coast, best at Danube. But since there is such huge land area at north, some kind of borderline must be established, especially since no one wants to be in Balkans. Kupa-Sava-Danube is ok.

Second about Balkan culture.

There is no such thing as Balkan culture unless you would call turbofolk culture, because it is the only thing that is common to all countries. Different areas had different histories, different influences by Ancient Greeks, Romans, Thracians, Illyrians, Slavs, Turks, Steppe peoples, Goths, Germans, Communism, Socialism etc. Religions are different, languages are different, they use different scripts, geography is different, folklore is different, mentality is different, architecture is different, everything is different wherever you look. Bosnia is not like Bulgaria, neither is Serbia like Greece, or Romania like Croatia. Cultures, as everything else, overlap regionally, but there is absolutely nothing that is common to entire region. No, not even war, ethnic cleansing, genocide, whatever comes to mind with word Balkan.

And finally about politics.

Until WW1 Balkan was the area under rule of Ottoman empire, or before that you can say it was Byzantine Empire (European mainland side) and states that were under influence and copied Constantinopolian way of rule (Serbia, Bulgaria, the empires). Or better said, the more common name for Turkish Europe. It got the bad name in 1. and 2. Balkan wars and WW1, when it was named "the powder keg". Though many forget, it was named so because the great powers would start war over Balkan affairs, not because of war among Balkan states. First Yugoslavia has become Balkan naturally because it was seen as extension of Serbia, I'm not sure about Romania, and in second Yugoslavia the officials were proud to call the country Balkan because it was, by their words, an example of brotherhood and unity (How I adore the irony of that slogan ).

Balkan wasn't very important word before 1990, after all it was just a big red blob on the map of Europe, those "Eastern Europeans" behind the wall, gray, poor and ugly. The same generalization that still stands, as well as new generalization of nationalist, warmongering Balkanians that's unfair to Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians (from Albania) and Romanians, as well to silent majority of people from the remaining countries. Greece, of course, stopped being Balkan because it was the spot of light on the peninsula, a NATO member, Greeks were given the right to be known by their own name, despite of being the most stereotypical Balkan country (mountains, funny folk dress, nationalism, religiousness, political overreacting, Turkish-like cuisine.)

In modern political sense, Balkan is well established term now. Already named countries minus Greece, and with only tiny addition that Slovenia stopped being Balkan country(!). Southeastern Europe, as it's PC name since some get offended at word Balkan, is divided in western Balkans - Former Yugoslavia, and Balkans - the rest. There is not much to say about that, though, as such is political reality. Former Yugoslavia will forever remain well connected in all fields, if nothing, then for language. And it is real region, with it's problems and common things due to common history.

I as Croatian both mind and don't mind being "Balkanian". I am not Balkanian culturally, Balkan is somewhere around Greece and Bulgaria for me, and I can't even relate to all Croatians in Croatia culturally due to North-South regional differences (Pannonia-Mediterranean). But Croatia wasn't considered part of Balkan before WW1, and is of completely different history then states east of it before 20. century, except for a fact that Ottomans were a blight for all of us. But a bunch of countries cornered in South-Eastern Europe must have a name for a region, because a region it is, and for practical and statistical purposes regions must exist. Since an idea about Balkan being what it is now is settled in heads of most of the World, why not leave it at it? Croatia, Romania and even Turkey are Balkan, Greece isn't.

Suma sumarum, Geographical Balkan exists but is irrelevant, cultural doesn't exist and never did, political is changeable, but it is what most people know as Balkan, and is reasonable because you must group smaller countries for practical purposes.

[Lonck]

holy crap, you did not just start another balkan thread.

[Chlodwig I.]

Balkans..... the Byzantine and Ottoman Heritage, the Orthodox Christianity

So Balkans Cultural.... Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, Bosnia&Herzegovina, Albania, Cosovo, Rumania,

[CiviC]

Balkans..... the Byzantine and Ottoman Heritage, the Orthodox Christianity

So Balkans Cultural.... Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, Bosnia&Herzegovina, Albania, Cosovo, Rumania,

OK, can you point me the Ottoman heritage of Romania?
As for Orthodox Christianity, it's shared also by Kiev and Moscow, like the Catholic heritage of Rome is shared by Poland even if Poland had nothing to do with Roman Empire.

[Dr. Oza]

OK, can you point me the Ottoman heritage of Romania?
As for Orthodox Christianity, it's shared also by Kiev and Moscow, like the Catholic heritage of Rome is shared by Poland even if Poland had nothing to do with Roman Empire.

well bucharest, its capital , and much of the country was held by the ottomans for 500 or so years and especially in Constanta and throughout romania there are 50,000 ethnic turks ...

and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

thats ottoman built

and the ottomans were the only reason feudalism died out in romania..

thr are many more effects but this is what i can say from the top of my head

[Grobar]

In my opinion thread starter CiviC is ashamed of Balkan. He wants us to reassure him his country Romania is not part of Balkan. Inferiority complex.

[CiviC]

In my opinion thread starter CiviC is ashamed of Balkan. He wants us to reassure him his country Romania is not part of Balkan. Inferiority complex.

A resentment from Kosovo thread I guess ...
I consider my country Eastern European, nothing to brag about ...

[dogukan]

ooooo OPA TSUPA!



I love balkan music...especially the balkan gypsies.
And the jazz stuff that comes with Balkan style. Like Shantel does.......
So yeah, except the Greeks, music is what connects balkans a lot. Greek music is more Aegean style I love it too.

[ShockBlast]

well bucharest, its capital , and much of the country was held by the ottomans for 500 or so years and especially in Constanta and throughout romania there are 50,000 ethnic turks ...

The Romanian principalities were vassals of the ottomans not part of it but doesn't mean we weren't influenced by them or we didn't influence them.

[CiviC]

The Romanian principalities were vassals of the ottomans not part of it but doesn't mean we weren't influenced by them or we didn't influence them.

The thing is Balkans means a mix of Orthodox Greek/Slav/Byzantine features with Islamic/Turkish/Ottoman features. Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania lacked a direct Islamic/Turkish/Ottoman influence as there was no Muslim/Turkish/Ottoman historic population on their soil. Of course Wallachia, as a direct neighbour of Balkans was influenced most then other Romanian lands, because negighbours influence eachother, but the same Moldavia was influenced more by East Slavic and Polish culture, with almost no influence from Balkans, and Transylvania was/is clearly of Central European tradition.

But Sipahizade, what do you mean "and the ottomans were the only reason feudalism died out in romania.." this makes no sense to me ...

[dragonsign]

When i hear the term "Balkans" I think of it like this:

[vopohame]

They are all nuts, thats their common ground. I dont see any real different in how they think about things other than being nuts. I married one. lol

[il padrino]

I consider my country Eastern European, nothing to brag about ..

Ah the inferiority complex.

Romania has been involved in the Balkan history,culture and it's a part of Balkans,like it or not.

@dogukan

nice video.

[CiviC]

Ah the inferiority complex.

Romania has been involved in the Balkan history,culture and it's a part of Balkans,like it or not.

Puting a label without any arguments disqualifies your opinion.
You and grobar are just trolling this thread ...

Please everybody feel free to discuss about Balkans and what defines them, not especially about Romania and Romania not being part of Balkans.

Some accuse me of complex of inferiority but I support Albanians, the most dispised people of Balkans. I also like Greeks and Turks without discrimination, and my neighbours Bulgarians I consider OK. But my country is not Balkanic as it's not Central European. This is my opinion because, I know my country and I visited Balkans so I know to make the difference. I wonder if our Serbian members ever have been in Transylvania and Moldavia to say Romania is a Balkanic country.

[il padrino]

You yourself said that you consider Romania as part of Eastern Europe and not Balkans,probably because you don't want to be in the same boat as us "barbarians".

And plz,before accusing others of trolling,look at yourself