Ottoman occupation of the Balkans consequences

[bailey_187]

The Balkan region of South East Europe is much more underdeveloped economically than the reast of Europe. I always thought this was due to geography, however, from reading The Balkans by Mark Mazower, it seems that the occupation of much of the Balkans by the Ottoman Empire may have been to blame. So in the same way that empires of Western Europe prevented much of the world developing, the Ottoman Empire stunted the Balkans development? Is this true, does anyone know?

Here is the reasons Mark Mazower gives in The Balkans (Phoenix, 2000)


[Towns were used as] "centres of administration from which the state could collect taxes, supervise trade and extract its monopoly of vital monopolies such as salt" pg.40

So rather than towns becoming a place of bourgeois commerce as they did in Western Europe, they were dominated by the ruling classes of the Ottoman Empire who had little interest in capital accumulation etc? How far do people agree that this is correct?



"Even after the central Ottoman state weakend in the course of the 17th century, the barriers to private capital accumulation on a west European model remained high. Trade and hence capital were gradually passing from Muslims and Jews into the hands of Christian Orthodox merchants, who did constitute an incipient bourgeosie of sorts. But the latter were well aware of their vulnerability in the empire, and made sure their affiliates existed beyond it's reach - in Vienna, or Odessa or Marseilles - whither funds could be safley transfered" pg.40

I dont quite get this. So because of the majority of the population of the Balkans under Ottoman rule, being Orthox Christians and having "second-class status" (pg.57), they were reluctant to get involved in capitalism in the Balkans? Why did the Muslims of the Balkans not become capitalists then, or were their numbers too small to be of any significance?


"..no real industrialisation took place in the towns under Ottoman rule...for the same reasons that commercial agriculture also made little progress in the empire: the lack of well-kept, well-secured roads, bureacratic obstruction, religious objections to the spread of printed media and scientific knowledge, and levels of public disorder which if anything probably increases overtime as the political struggle for Macedonia intensified. pg.41"

So due to neglect of the Balkans by the Ottoman Empire, by not building infrastructure needed for industrialisation and commercialisation of agriculture, capitalism did not develop?
And due to Ottoman rule of the Balkans being an occupation, the political instability and disorder made this less likley?


This is the first book i have read on the Balkans, so i do not know how accepted the authors views are, so if they are wrong, forgive me. Could people criticise, agree with, or expand upon any of those points for why the Balkans is underdeveloped in comparison to West and Central Europe?

[Ismail]

I've only really read up on three areas under Ottoman control: Albania, Kosovo, and Bosnia. In these areas the vast majority of people were peasants ruled by landowners, who dominated the political and economic landscape. Since the Ottoman Empire was itself feudal, the prospects of capitalist development so long as the feudal forces remained in power were slim, especially since the feudal peasant economy is prone to famines, a noted lack of productivity, and other things which make economic development lag, and since in the 3 areas I looked at there was no real effort to build infrastructure; the only goal was to keep the landlords of those areas content.

I do know that in southern Albania the Orthodox were more wealthy and had more influence as merchants and such, and were also the types who often led the struggle against the Ottoman Empire. In the northern areas the Catholics ruled and were absolutely tribal (so much so that the Turks didn't even really bother to have them pay taxes), whereas the Muslims in central Albania were divided into peasants who tended to dislike Ottoman rule because of its anti-Albanian slant, and landowners who looked towards the Turks for protection. In the south Muslims were often from the Bektashi sect (which Hoxha's family came from), whose leaderships were often rich landowners and merchants who sent their offspring to Western institutions of learning and were active in anti-Ottoman movements.

In the end though, Albania was a special case, since religion wasn't especially important in the country gaining its independence; it was often secondary in the mind of most Albanians.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

As with all colonial holdings they were only developed to further extract profit/resources, the balkans under the Ottomans is somewhat similar to Africa under the various European empires with regards to economic explotation.

[Devrim]

"Even after the central Ottoman state weakend in the course of the 17th century, the barriers to private capital accumulation on a west European model remained high. Trade and hence capital were gradually passing from Muslims and Jews into the hands of Christian Orthodox merchants, who did constitute an incipient bourgeosie of sorts. But the latter were well aware of their vulnerability in the empire, and made sure their affiliates existed beyond it's reach - in Vienna, or Odessa or Marseilles - whither funds could be safley transfered" pg.40
I dont quite get this. So because of the majority of the population of the Balkans under Ottoman rule, being Orthox Christians and having "second-class status" (pg.57), they were reluctant to get involved in capitalism in the Balkans?

Not reluctant to get involved in capitalism, but reluctant to make large scale investments preferring to invest, or at least have the possibility to quickly move, the majority of their capital outside of the empire.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

The Ottoman Empire was a mixture of a traditional palace economy and a feudalist system, even though regions tended to have a lot of autonomy. The Balkans was actually the most economically developed region of the Empire, while Palestine and Mesopotamia were the least developed regions.

The empire was all the time characterised by what I would call "blind" despotism at its centre and varying degrees of gradually decreasing control the farther away you got from Constantinople. After the last strong Ottoman ruler died in the 1640's, imperial politics were mostly about courtier intrigues. At the same time, the Ottoman Empire was on par with most other European great powers until the end of the 18th century. In fact, Voltaire admired the Ottoman Empire for its meritocracy and the high level of civil freedoms its subjects enjoyed compared with for example contemporary France.

The decline of the Spanish empire was more impressive and is harder to explain. Its fall would be comparable to the USA falling down to the same living standards and status in the international community as for example Indonesia.

[Devrim]

The Ottoman Empire was a mixture of a traditional palace economy and a feudalist system,

I don't think that the Ottoman Empire was a feudal system at all:


Feudalism is a political and military system between a feudal aristocracy (a lord), and his vassals. In its most classic sense, feudalism refers to the Medieval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) European political system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_system) composed of a set of reciprocal legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) and military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military) obligations among the warrior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior) nobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility), revolving around the three key concepts of lords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord), vassals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal), and fiefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fief). Although derived from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) word feodum (fief), then in use, the term feudalism and the system it describes were not conceived of as a formal political system by the people living in the Medieval Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Period).

It may be possible to argue that the later period of the empire has some things approaching this, but the ideal of the Ottoman Empire was that there were no local lords, and until quite a late period governors were regularly rotated precisely to stop these sort of relationships building up.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

It may be possible to argue that the later period of the empire has some things approaching this, but the ideal of the Ottoman Empire was that there were no local lords, and until quite a late period governors were regularly rotated precisely to stop these sort of relationships building up.

Devrim

Neither Russia under the tsars nor the Qing Empire were feudalist in the political sense. I think that a lot of marxists when they talk about feudalism mean an agrarian economy dominated by large estate owners, which most pre-modern civilisations were.

[chegitz guevara]

Mazower, going on what you've reported, doesn't seem like someone who's done his homework.

There are a number of factors as to why the Balkans fell behind the rest of Europe, but the Ottoman occupation is only tangential.

When the Ottomans first brought all of the Balkans under their rule, trade actually increased, prosperity expanded, and the European March lords had to build fortifications along their borders, not so much to keep the Ottomans out, but so as to keep their own people in.

There are three reasons for this. First, while the tax on Christians and Jews was higher than on Muslims (whom could not be taxed directly) it was substantially lower than under the previous Christian lords. This meant that immediately, the Christians and Jews had a lot more money to spend, and trade flurished.

Also, with the whole region brought under one government, the incessant warfare stopped.

The third reason is that the Empire required communities to maintain roads, and create places for merchants to rest. With banditry kept to a minimum, good roads and merchant hotels, trade was quite easy.

What brought about the decline of the region was a few things. One was the general decline of the Empire, which was caused largely by the Portuguese rounding Africa and destroying all commerce in the Indian Ocean except for what was carried on their own ships. Ottoman wealth, based on the trade between Europe and India, dropped precipitously.

The Ottomans also started becoming conservative and weren't as quick to adapt new military technologies as they had been. In the late 16th Century, Europeans finally became the equals of the Ottoman, but they were too busy tearing each other apart to notice. It wasn't until a hundred years later (and after they recovered from the Thirty Years War) that they learned they were the Ottoman's military superiors and were able to take Hungary and (temporarily) the Morea from the Ottomans. Only bad generalship and Peter the Great getting himself surrounded kept the Russians from taking rest. After that, was just a long period of losing wars.

These areas came under Austrian domination or Russian influence. By the end of the 19th Century, not much of the Balkans were under Ottoman control, Albania, Macedonia, part of Bulgaria. It's hardly reasonable to blame the Ottomans for that region's economic backwardness.

The real answer to why the Balkans aren't as developed as the rest of Europe is the same reason why the rest of the world isn't as developed as Europe (with a few exceptions). It's because of imperialism, where development in the periphery is done in a way to increase the wealth of the imperialists. All the capitalist development in that region has been done to make outsiders wealth, not to develop an internal market.

As an aside, the Soviets directed considerable amounts of resources for development to this region. They invested far more than they ever received in return. But with the fall of socialism, those industries were old, and inefficient, and they've been shut down.

[ComradeOm]

There are a number of factors as to why the Balkans fell behind the rest of Europe, but the Ottoman occupation is only tangentialOne interesting reason that I've come across recently has less to do with the Ottoman influence per se on the Balkans than this combined with its geographic location. A theory put forward by Chirot's Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe is that under the Ottomans the Balkans, particularly in the north, essentially became a frontier region. Most administrative efforts in the area were therefore concerned with the collection of food, material, and manpower to maintain the garrisons and armies. This limited the state's role in encouraging economic development, and hindered the private accumulation of capital with the retention of a significant moneyless economy

Just had a breeze through the book when I saw it in the shop but the OP may want to check it out

[Andropov]

One interesting reason that I've come across recently has less to do with the Ottoman influence per se on the Balkans than this combined with its geographic location. A theory put forward by Chirot's Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe is that under the Ottomans the Balkans, particularly in the north, essentially became a frontier region. Most administrative efforts in the area were therefore concerned with the collection of food, material, and manpower to maintain the garrisons and armies. This limited the state's role in encouraging economic development, and hindered the private accumulation of capital with the retention of a significant moneyless economy
But the likes of Croatia and Slovenia would be some of the most advanced Balkan countries.
But this could be explained due to differing economic factors in later years such as Slovenia's involvement in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

[ComradeOm]

But the likes of Croatia and Slovenia would be some of the most advanced Balkan countries.
But this could be explained due to differing economic factors in later years such as Slovenia's involvement in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.Could be the latter. Like much of the industrialised areas of the Empire, Slovenia and much of Croatia were ruled from Vienna (as opposed Budapest) during the 19th C. They may have benefited from that

[chegitz guevara]

One interesting reason that I've come across recently has less to do with the Ottoman influence per se on the Balkans than this combined with its geographic location. A theory put forward by Chirot's Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe is that under the Ottomans the Balkans, particularly in the north, essentially became a frontier region. Most administrative efforts in the area were therefore concerned with the collection of food, material, and manpower to maintain the garrisons and armies. This limited the state's role in encouraging economic development, and hindered the private accumulation of capital with the retention of a significant moneyless economy

Just had a breeze through the book when I saw it in the shop but the OP may want to check it out

This would definitely be true of the marches. Hungary went from being the major power of the region to becoming an empty country do to one hundred years of more or less constant warfare.

As to why Slovenia and Croatia became more industrialized, one, they were part of the Habsburg Empire. The northwestern border of the Ottoman Empire was the furthest the Ottoman armies could reach in a season, as they always marched from Constantinople. The Ottmoans only made a attempts to go beyond that border, while the Habsburgs were constantly invading Hungary. After the border moved a few hundred klicks to the South, those regions were solidly in Habsburg territory.

Most of the industrialization, however, has to do with those regions being closest to the West in Yugoslavia, so that's where Yugoslavia directed most of its development.

[ComradeOm]

As to why Slovenia and Croatia became more industrialized, one, they were part of the Habsburg EmpireMore importantly I think is that they were part of the Austrian sphere of the Dual Monarchy during the crucial industrialisation period in the 19th C. Within the Empire there was almost an informal trade dependency loop at work with Hungry (and you'd assume the lands ruled by the Magyars) focusing on agricultural produce in order to sell to the increasingly industrialised regions to the west. I don't think its a coincidence that the lands that fell under Vienna jurisdiction's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%96sterreich-Ungarns_Ende.png) ended up as the most industrialised in the Empire