Muslims or Catholics for Orthodox survival

Originally posted by Al Jassas Wake up Leo,The Balkan states have been independent for nearly 200 years and got no where. Korea in the 1950s was in a worse shape than even todays zimbabwe and yet look where they are now. Don't put everything on the Turks. Al-Jassas

Withtout the Ottoman rule, the Balkan states would have been much more developed and less corrupted.

Not at the level of Western Europe, but closer than they are today.

And with a Catholic rule they would have been even more civilised, but also this would lead to an alteration of the Orthodox spirituality.


I think the Balkan peoples in 14-18th century would have prefered the Ottoman rule than a Catholic rule, just because for them the integrity of faith was more important than the economical-social advantages. But in 19-20 century religion passed on a secundary plan and all the Balkan peoples consider a calamity the Ottoman rule that have been in their countries.

in Romania was a couple of mosques here and there, some garissons and settlers all of them were limited to a certain part of the country

A more important factor of the backardess than the tribute (financial, in products and if I'm not wrong in people too) was the Oriental influence in mentality which manifested stronger in the Phanariot period (18-19th centuries) when the Romanian principalities suffered mostly from the Turkish influence. Before 18th century the princes were nominated by the land boyars, in the Phanariot period they were nominated by Sultan from the Greek population of Phanar (a neighborhood of Istanbul) and they were extremely corrupted and backwarded the most the principalities. In this period, 18-19th centuries, the Principalities have been orientalized, before that there have been a more European spirit in society and culture.

Dobruja was the only part of today Romania under direct rule and was and perhaps still is the less civilised part of Romania, with all touristic industry of the litoral and the Constanta commerical port.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariotes

Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz - in 1939 Bulgaria was the number six most developed economy in Europe.

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi I think that finally the balkans would be a part of the catholic world. At least with the rise of Habsburgs at the 16th century the balkans would be a part of the empire. I dont know how could they manage but the catholic states would force the people for conversion much more than ottomans.

If there are no Ottomans in Balkans, then Habsburgs wouldn't be able to inherit kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary, which happened when the king of those two kingdoms died in the battle of Mohacs 1526 against Ottomans.
Thereby the east-central Europe would stay under the rule of Jagellonian dynasty (Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania) for unknow amount of time. Habsburgs would be limited to Austria only.

Originally posted by Menumorut Originally posted by Al Jassas Wake up Leo,The Balkan states have been independent for nearly 200 years and got no where. Korea in the 1950s was in a worse shape than even todays zimbabwe and yet look where they are now. Don't put everything on the Turks. Al-Jassas Withtout the Ottoman rule, the Balkan states would have been much more developed and less corrupted. Not at the level of Western Europe, but closer than they are today. And with a Catholic rule they would have been even more civilised, but also this would lead to an alteration of the Orthodox spirituality. I think the Balkan peoples in 14-18th century would have prefered the Ottoman rule than a Catholic rule, just because for them the integrity of faith was more important than the economical-social advantages. But in 19-20 century religion passed on a secundary plan and all the Balkan peoples consider a calamity the Ottoman rule that have been in their countries. in Romania was a couple of mosques here and there, some garissons and settlers all of them were limited to a certain part of the country A more important factor of the backardess than the tribute (financial, in products and if I'm not wrong in people too) was the Oriental influence in mentality which manifested stronger in the Phanariot period (18-19th centuries) when the Romanian principalities suffered mostly from the Turkish influence. Before 18th century the princes were nominated by the land boyars, in the Phanariot period they were nominated by Sultan from the Greek population of Phanar (a neighborhood of Istanbul) and they were extremely corrupted and backwarded the most the principalities. In this period, 18-19th centuries, the Principalities have been orientalized, before that there have been a more European spirit in society and culture. Dobruja was the only part of today Romania under direct rule and was and perhaps still is the less civilised part of Romania, with all touristic industry of the litoral and the Constanta commerical port. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariotes

A good explanation I think. Also we know that the backwardness of the balkans were not only true for them. Eastern Europe was also less prosperous(Before and after the ottomans)

Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz Originally posted by Al Jassas Wake up Leo,The Balkan states have been independent for nearly 200 years and got no where. Korea in the 1950s was in a worse shape than even todays zimbabwe and yet look where they are now. Don't put everything on the Turks.   Al-Jassas You're the obe,who should wake up and read some history - in 1939 Bulgaria was the number six most developed economy in Europe.Rusevelt for example called Bulgaria "an economical marvel".It was communism that made balkan and all eastern-european countries poor and undeveloped.     And Ottoman rule brought not simply economical but CULTURAL backwardness,because people under Ottoman rule didn't live through their own Renaissans,Enlightment age and other periods in European history...They were cut off of the christian world,not being able to produce their own great artists,writers,politicians and scientists (at least not as much as other christian countries).

Bulgaria-1939-6th economy, may be you are right. You can not always blame the ottomans for your nations defects, I know this is the easy way but you must think other matters

Originally posted by Al Jassas As for you Leo, I went around and checked the corruption index to see what is the standing of those countries saved by Austria from the Turkish yoke and where they stand in the world today and lo and behold, Bulgaria is less corrupt than Croatia and the former communist Baltic trio is far ahead in the list even above Solvenia. Hungary, 150 years under the Turkish yoke is also much more forward. Jordan and other Arab states also recently under the Turkish rule are all less corrupt so was Iraq before the recent invasion.

Do you have a link for that corruption index you checked? Just interested ...

Just to get this straight, that shows Bulgaria, Croatia and Turkey to be way more corrupt than Slovenia, and the Baltics.

Originally posted by Al Jassas But here is the thing, Leo claims that the Ottomans were the sole reason for the backwardness and corrption in Bulgaria and that countries like Slovenia and particularly Croatia were "saved" by not being ruled by them which is wrong since both greece and Cyprus are both much less corrupt than Croatia and quite near Slovenia's standing despite they were ruled for over 500 years by the Turks.   Al-Jassas

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Leo   You oversimplify things and grossly generalize things and your method is like this, the sun rises from east to west and goes in a circular path, then the Sun revolves around the earth.    If all the countries that were ruled under the Ottoman empire are in the same catagory then your argument is absolutely justified, but things aren't as simple as you portray, Greece and Hungary both lived under Ottoman rule directly and had large Turkish population and were much more heavily influenced by Turkish rule, even thought it was brief in Hungary's case, than their neighbours. Yet they are quite successfull and forward.   Serbia and Montenegro (the worst in the list of countries above) on the Other hand had been fully free from Ottoman rule, except nominal suzernity, even before Greece got its independece yet it and the rest of the Balkan countries are at the bottom. So is it Turkey or is it something to do with the church since they all the backward nations are Orthodox, except Croatia and Greece? Or is it a cultural issue?   Al-Jassas

Edited by Leonardo - 03-Aug-2008 at 21:09

The question was not about corruption and other stuff. The question was about Orthodox faith.