Muslims or Catholics for Orthodox survival

 

From a cultural plurality point of view, it is sad that the Orthodox sphere (what Huntington calls the 'Eastern civilisation') was weakened, and it would be wrong to say that Ottoman (or Catholic) domination was good for them. In my opinion, if the Balkans were under Byzantine rule instead of Ottoman, today the Balkan minors would not be so thoroughly 'Westernised', but would have had a stronger sense of cultural distinctiveness as a whole, although they would have faced another danger, that of Hellenisation.

 

However, there are important points to consider.

 

1. Since the divide of the Roman Empire in half, the Western part was dominated not only by a different religion, but also by a socio-economic order different from the Eastern part. The Western part had rural feudalism, while the Eastern part had an economy based on cities and rural communities. The Latin-Byzantine conflict was also the conflict between the Western feudal system and the Eastern traditional system. Ottomans replaced the Byzantines in this struggle. Feudal system exploited the peasants more, and allowed a higher rate of wealth accumulation, which led to increased investment in the West and their eventual economic development. But it was not liked by peasants. Especially when applied by foreign peoples and oppressive alien churches. That's one reason why Orthodox Balkan peasants supported the Ottomans.

 

2. Ottomans made a deal with the Orthodox church. It was the official church, and it regained the areas lost to Catholics. If you look at the converted Muslim areas in the Balkans, you see that they are more likely to be Catholic before, rather than Orthodox. 

 

3. Western superiority over others was apparent after two simultaneous revolutions, the industrial (British) and the political (French). The effects of these revolutions spread from the ground zeros in these countries by diffusion, similar to the shockwave of an explosion. Proximity to the centre gave those countries a headstart. That's why they were more developed. Not because they are Protestants, Catholics or Whites or whatever.

 

4. Of course one can ask why those revolutions (in short, modernity) started in those countries and not in anywhere else. The reasons are many, feudal system was possibly one of the reasons, geographical advantage, mercantalism, exsistance of small states, exploitation of the overseas colonies, etc. Whatever the reasons, these things happened not because the Westerners were Protestant, Catholic or White. Anyone who believes that is racist, and more importantly, wrong.

 

5. If you look at the relative development of the areas (taking into account their populations etc.), you will see that the Balkans are not that backward compared to other areas such as Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic or Belarus. In the 19th century, Ottoman Empire was backward compared to the West, but not that backward compared to Russia. Austria-Hungary was developed in parts (it was much nearer to the ground-zero of the dual revolutions), but Hobsbawm writes that the level of development their lands in the Balkans were low. The literacy rates in Austro-Hungarian Croatia were no better than the Ottoman areas. Same for Sicily and southern Italy and parts of Spain and Portugal. Russia was politically a fossil by late 19th century, and was more backwards than the Ottoman Empire, which had a multi-party system going in 1900s. Comparable countries farther from Europe such as Iran or China were far more backward that the OE and Russia.

 

6. At the time of and after the Greek war of independence, there were two schools of thought, the neo and paleo imperialists. The first group wanted to unite the Greeks in the Ottoman Empire under the Athens government and their independent church, and the second group wanted to reinstate the Byzantine Empire from within the Ottoman empire and the Ecumenical patriarchate. This fact indicates the power of the ties of the Patriarchate with the government in Constantinople, even when that government is not Orthodox. The first group won this historical struggle, and defined the future of the Greek state as a Westernised one. Russia tried to fill in the power vacuum left by the demise of the Ottomans, but failed. Today the West has taken over the Balkans and even Turkey is claiming to be 'European'. In fact Europe is nothing other than a geographical expression, which does not have a single culture, religion, or ethnicity. 'European' is an euphemism for 'Western'. Greeks, Bulgarians, etc. were not 'European' because they were not Western. They became Western, when they were dominated by Western 'hard' and 'soft' power. Even Turkey has fallen to the Western expansion, and only Russia stands as a alternative sphere of power, despite taking severe hits after the collapse of the USSR.

 

7. Looking at the GDP per capita as an indicator of development could be misleading. Turkey today has similar (actually higher) pro-capita income than Bulgaria or Romania (if you look at the distribution, it is all concentrated in the Western part, so if you remove the Turkish Kurdistan, the gap would be even larger). And Greece has higher than all. If you look at the figures from 1990 (CIA factbook is available online), just before the collapse of communism, you see that Bulgaria was similar to Greece an they were both way ahead of Turkey. Even though Greece has always been richer than both since independence, it has recently increased the gap, thanks to EU.

 

Bulgaria was not richer per capita than Greece at any point, and certainly not 6th in Europe. Check Mark Harrison for GDP before WW2: http://www.jstor.org/stable/152704?seq=4. Bulgaria was ahead of Greece and Turkey in women's rights and education during the communist era, so blaming communism or the Ottomans for their situation today is really lame.

 

8. So back to the main question, what would have happened if the Balkans were never under Ottoman rule? I think they would be at a similar level of development as today. If they were under Western rule, they would have been even weaker culturally. If they were under local governments or a local Orthodox empire, they would have been stronger culturally. Or at least the Greeks would have been.

 

Than your grandparents were farmers. Most of greek traders were rich.

 

By the way,If emigration is a good sign of poority, shouldnt europea more poor from ottomans? They gave more immigrants.. Much more.

 

 

That is realy boring and absurd. After 100 year and two world war, You still accuse ottomans? Eh. It is better If You accuse satan for first sin.

 

I hope my grandsons will not suffer same absurdity.

 

 

 

 

Is that so?  I thought it would be more natural for Bulgarians to migrate to the Western EU, especially since Bulgaria is aslo a member state now.

 

As for the topic at hand since i haven't commented on it yet, I think that Beylerbey nailed it in his analysis that it would be probably the greek culture which will continue to dominate the Balkans if the ottoman or the europeans didn't come, but one thing is fr certain, enlightenment would have definitely never started in the balkans nor reached it during the 18th century. The socio-economic conditions are just against this prospect.

 

Al-Jassas

 

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Today the West has taken over the Balkans and even Turkey is claiming to be 'European'. In fact Europe is nothing other than a geographical expression, which does not have a single culture, religion, or ethnicity. 'European' is an euphemism for 'Western'. Greeks, Bulgarians, etc. were not 'European' because they were not Western. They became Western, when they were dominated by Western 'hard' and 'soft' power. Even Turkey has fallen to the Western expansion, and only Russia stands as a alternative sphere of power, despite taking severe hits after the collapse of the USSR.

I want say something but i end up just agreeing with you. I know boring.

I do not see Europeans as a natural cultural group. The Mediterranean has much more in common on all sides of that sea than the lass mass named Europe. The term should be political and nothing deeper.

 I am one of the few Greeks, at least in the diaspora, that prefers not to be pigeon holed 'Western'. We took that part on, in opposition to our Muslim masters during the Greek revolution. Ironically the renaissance came back in some form from the West and the old antiquities was revived as a source of identity building. The link is there but the Christian-Roman part was much more important. By that time the whole West had (argubaly) adopted the greco roman history as its own. Its the other way around. hmmff

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi 8. So back to the main question, what would have happened if the Balkans were never under Ottoman rule? I think they would be at a similar level of development as today. If they were under Western rule, they would have been even weaker culturally. If they were under local governments or a local Orthodox empire, they would have been stronger culturally. Or at least the Greeks would have been.

If the west ruled us we would be no different to southern Italy where they changed language and church and are no better off for it.

... but we can claim Ferrari's and fashion as if if we live in the Lombard areas and join  the Italians.

My take on the topic;
The Ottomans did protect the Holy Roman Orthodox church, it was a symbiotic relationship.
Its interesting to note the Church only highlights the good bits; the preservation of culture, the 'secret schools',  certain Papas in the struggle. I am a little cynical of that type of memory. Individuals for sure, but the Church as a institution was a part of the Ottoman power structure, even if as a hostage.

 However, there would of been no room for this under Latin rule. They were no better, kinder or tolerant of the Orthodox faithful and had every reason to see us proselytized over time. Why? The Holy Roman Orthodox Church is also The Catholic church with strong claims over four out of the original five in the pentarchy. This is a powerful claim (agree with it or not) that cant be imitated or raised by a Protestant type church. While it exist the Latin church will always have that issue of apolistic lineage.




Edited by Leonidas - 05-Aug-2008 at 13:46

 

The only ethnic bulgarians that live in Turkey are those in the European part of it,they are not even close to 300 000 and it is not because of immigration,but because they live there for centuries (read about first and second bulgarian Empire and Tzar Kaloyan,who expeled the greeks there and setlled bulgarians).No bulgarians are immigrating to Turkey,because they won't get a better life there than they have in Bulgaria.Bulgarians immigrate to western Europe and the US,especcialy now,when they are in the EU.And there is even no logic in ANYONE immigrating to Turkey,when thousadns of turks are in fact immigrating to other countries (Germany especially).Why should bulgarians go to Turkey instead of Germany,when it is even easier for them now to go to Germany?There is absolutely no logic in what you're trying to proove.

 

 

And the thing about thriving economy beacuse of the return of the turks is simply ridiculous.