|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Apr 23, 2009 0:09:00 GMT -5
Hypothetically, imagine the Turks never invaded the Balkans. Obviously it would be a much more peaceful place, but what would the present day borders look like? What else would be of the Balkans, it’s people and its culture? Would the Hapsburg Empire have asserted more control? No doubt this would have been better. Just imagine the Balkans without the devastating, divisive and culturally destructive effect of islamicization for one thing. I’ve no doubt the place would be so much better.
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Apr 23, 2009 0:18:40 GMT -5
What are you takling about the first two wars of the 20th century had nothing to do with them. So it still wasn't peaceful and anyway someone would have invaded if it was not for them. We had it all. The Balkans, Home Of The Invasions :-)
|
|
|
Post by ErmirI on Apr 23, 2009 0:23:19 GMT -5
Well truth is, as soon as the ottomans left, South slavs started killing each other, once invaded people turned into invaders and Balkan wars started
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Apr 23, 2009 0:28:05 GMT -5
There would be 2,000,000 more people claiming Serbhood. Sarajevo and Mostar wouldn't exist. That's about it, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Apr 23, 2009 0:41:41 GMT -5
There would be 2,000,000 more people claiming Serbhood. Sarajevo and Mostar wouldn't exist. That's about it, I think. Well obviously the Bosniak identity as we know it today would not exist. But would have some other Bosniak identity emerged from the Kotoromanic nobility and a few other non Serb or Croat identifying people? I very much doubt it. I think Serbia would have grown even stronger then under the reign of Stefan Dusan & Bosnia would have easily been incorporated into Serbdom.
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Apr 23, 2009 0:45:13 GMT -5
And amen that didn't happen. There still would have been some kind of Bosnian identity though.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Apr 23, 2009 1:05:12 GMT -5
Well obviously the Bosniak identity as we know it today would not exist. But would have some other Bosniak identity emerged from the Kotoromanic nobility and a few other non Serb or Croat identifying people? I very much doubt it. I think Serbia would have grown even stronger then under the reign of Stefan Dusan & Bosnia would have easily been incorporated into Serbdom. Bosnia has been incorporated into Serbdom. Serbs politically hold more territory than anyone else in Bosnia and legally hold more than half of Bosnia. No one will ever be able to wipe out "Bosnian Serbs" (as if there is any other kind) because everyone fears us, even Serbians.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Apr 23, 2009 1:11:00 GMT -5
We would all be dancing all the time, cancer would have been cured, AIDs would have never started, all men and women were considered equally beautiful and admired for their individual characteristics, war would cease, all could have everything and there would be no need for competition.Furthermore the world's population's increase would be matched by the increasing size of the planet without any negatice results whatsoever. Russia and America would sign an eternal friendship pact, mankind would have advanced at 5x the pace with 1000x less stress and problems, we would all be happy 24/7 so nobody would ask 'how are you?'...
And on, and on, and on....
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Apr 23, 2009 1:29:43 GMT -5
We would all be dancing all the time, cancer would have been cured, AIDs would have never started, all men and women were considered equally beautiful and admired for their individual characteristics, war would cease, all could have everything and there would be no need for competition.Furthermore the world's population's increase would be matched by the increasing size of the planet without any negatice results whatsoever. Russia and America would sign an eternal friendship pact, mankind would have advanced at 5x the pace with 1000x less stress and problems, we would all be happy 24/7 so nobody would ask 'how are you?'... And on, and on, and on.... Come on, I doubt it would be that good.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Apr 23, 2009 1:43:32 GMT -5
A Bosnian identity could have easily existed actually. Bosnia had its own state before the Turks invaded, one which was spreading its control. It's hard to estimate what religion would have been the main one in Bosnia though. Orthodoxy and Catholicism would have fought over it. Bosnia could have ended up like Ukraine split between both with other Christians (like Greek Catholics or even some local Bosnian permutations) to boot.
Economically and socially speaking, we would have been much more developed though. The Balkans were the most socially advanced part of Europe before the Turks came (and the least socially advanced after they left).
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Apr 23, 2009 1:52:17 GMT -5
Umm... care to expand on the last notion? From what I know of the late Middle Ages, the Italian city-states were worlds ahead of the Balkans by the time of the Turkish conquest, nevermind the increasingly centralized France, which was soon to become a powerhouse... in fact the last few decades of Balkan 'freedom' was marked by increasing westernization and adoption of western feudal culture.
In fact the most advanced part of Europe was, ironically, the Ottoman Empire at that time.
Well, maybe I should ask, what period are you actually discussing? You should also clarify advanced... Serbs were not more advanced than any Italian city-state at any point really, nor more advanced than the HRE... if you mean Constantinople? Well, your right, only up to, say, 12th century... from there on it was night-night.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Apr 23, 2009 2:21:14 GMT -5
Umm... care to expand on the last notion? From what I know of the late Middle Ages, the Italian city-states were worlds ahead of the Balkans by the time of the Turkish conquest, nevermind the increasingly centralized France, which was soon to become a powerhouse... in fact the last few decades of Balkan 'freedom' was marked by increasing westernization and adoption of western feudal culture. In fact the most advanced part of Europe was, ironically, the Ottoman Empire at that time. Well, maybe I should ask, what period are you actually discussing? You should also clarify advanced... Serbs were not more advanced than any Italian city-state at any point really, nor more advanced than the HRE... if you mean Constantinople? Well, your right, only up to, say, 12th century... from there on it was night-night. Exactly. Comparatively speaking, the Ottoman system introduced a far more liberal policy vis-á-vis the peasantry as opposed to the local principalities, kingdoms & Byzantine empire. If you compare the Code of Dusan to the Ottoman legal system, it is obvious that the latter is far more humane and tolerant in all regards. While the Code of Dusan says that "heretics" (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox of the Byzantine rite & other local Christian sects) are to be forcefully converted, otherwise they'd have their property confiscated and themselves executed, the Ottomans allowed Christians & Jews to freely exercise their religion. Serfs (land-tied peasants) were given more rights, mutilation laws were not as gruesome and frequent and so on. The Ottoman policy in regards to religion allowed Orthodoxy to expand and compete with Catholicism in regions like Bosnia where Orthodoxy was inexistant previously. The Ottomans generally favoured Orthodoxy over Catholicism, because it feared local uprisings subsidized by the Papacy & Spain and so on. This paved the road for the colonization of Bosnia with Orthodox immigrants, a sizeable proportion of whom were Vlachs, and soon they were to become a majority in the nineteenth century. So, if you're really wondering how it would be for Serbia and the Serbs in Bosnia, I'm sure your presence there wouldn't have been so great as now. And I don't think Islam's allegedly "violent nature" is the root to the wars in the Balkans, seeing that the most vicious crimes were infact committed by supposedly devote Christians, like the murderers of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica -- these same murderers were blessed by their pops before going to action.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Apr 23, 2009 2:49:29 GMT -5
Oh this is absurd that Orthodoxy was somehow strengthened under the Turks. Albanians & Muslims of the Balkans have some really stupid self serving ideas on religion. Serbs were Serbs before Orthodoxy and they existed in Bosnia under bans that reluctantly had allegiance to the pope, and that’s the extent to which they were Catholic. So lets see, we had zero zip zilch Muslims before the Turks arrived, & what religion (hence ethnicity) do you think most of them would be today if Islam was not brought in? Islam fvcked up the Balkans. Islam is the exact opposite and the biggest insult to anything Serbian.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Apr 23, 2009 3:03:53 GMT -5
Umm... care to expand on the last notion? From what I know of the late Middle Ages, the Italian city-states were worlds ahead of the Balkans by the time of the Turkish conquest, nevermind the increasingly centralized France, which was soon to become a powerhouse... in fact the last few decades of Balkan 'freedom' was marked by increasing westernization and adoption of western feudal culture. In fact the most advanced part of Europe was, ironically, the Ottoman Empire at that time. Well, maybe I should ask, what period are you actually discussing? You should also clarify advanced... Serbs were not more advanced than any Italian city-state at any point really, nor more advanced than the HRE... if you mean Constantinople? Well, your right, only up to, say, 12th century... from there on it was night-night. Remnants of the Roman Empire predominated in Byzantium, and the Balkans were largely under that influence while Western Europe was overrun by barbarian Germanic tribes and in the Dark Ages. That's what my pretty general comment was referring to. I realize that early on the Ottomans were pretty advanced. But that's not the topic here (note the thread title). By the end of it they were a sickly Empire. And by the end the Balkans were left as economically and socially the least developed part of Europe (whereas the region was far from that before they came).
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Apr 23, 2009 3:20:56 GMT -5
You can interpret it as you wish. But facts speak for themselves. Wars and diseases decimated Bosnia's population. The Turks needed manpower to sheild themselves against Habsburg incursions. This manpower was predominantly comoposed by Orthodox immigrants across Drina, many of whom were linguistically Vlachs, later Slavicized ...
Serbs were a tribe before Orthodoxy. Your sense of being a nation is deeply linked to Orthodoxy, much like you claim Islam is the key to the Bosniak national identity. It is hard to imagine a Serbia without the impact of the SOC.
And the idea that the bans were "reluctant Catholics" and really "Serbs" being pressed to alter their identity because of the Papacy is absurd. Are you suggesting they were crypto-Orthodox? There's little to support this claim. If they were "weak Catholics" and reluctant to obey the Pope, it has little to do with some hidden sense of Serbdom and adherence to Orthodoxy, and more with a will to emancipate themselves from a centralised Catholic Church. In the Middle Age, Orthodoxy was strong only in Hercegovina; Bosnia was as Catholic as Croatia, and if we must assume that Bosniaks must've been something different than Bosnians today, hadn't the Turks so cruelly intervened, then they'd be Croats 100 times before they'd be Serbs.
Perhaps, although it is impossible to say and almost stupid to speculate, Bosnia wouldn't of experienced a war hadn't the Turks played their role in the Balkans ... because it would be all Catholic.
PS What would've happened if the Slavs didn't come to the Balkans? Perhaps that's an even more intriguing question to ponder on than the Muslim issue ...
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Apr 23, 2009 4:46:08 GMT -5
You can interpret it as you wish. But facts speak for themselves. Wars and diseases decimated Bosnia's population. The Turks needed manpower to sheild themselves against Habsburg incursions. This manpower was predominantly comoposed by Orthodox immigrants across Drina, many of whom were linguistically Vlachs, later Slavicized .... Many many many. How many? And tell me what a Vlach is while you're at it. Serbs were a tribe before Orthodoxy. Your sense of being a nation is deeply linked to Orthodoxy, much like you claim Islam is the key to the Bosniak national identity. It is hard to imagine a Serbia without the impact of the SOC. Absolutely. You could say Orthodoxy is totally linked if you want. Serbdom is a language, culture and religion that emerged and has its right before anything Muslim. And the idea that the bans were "reluctant Catholics" and really "Serbs" being pressed to alter their identity because of the Papacy is absurd. Are you suggesting they were crypto-Orthodox? There's little to support this claim. If they were "weak Catholics" and reluctant to obey the Pope, it has little to do with some hidden sense of Serbdom and adherence to Orthodoxy, and more with a will to emancipate themselves from a centralised Catholic Church. In the Middle Age, Orthodoxy was strong only in Hercegovina; Bosnia was as Catholic as Croatia, and if we must assume that Bosniaks must've been something different than Bosnians today, hadn't the Turks so cruelly intervened, then they'd be Croats 100 times before they'd be Serbs. Not hidden but openly, that's why when you look at the povelje of bans and the Kings of Bosnia they have numerous references to Serbdom, despite not being Orthodox! So they would actually be 100 times more Serb then Croat and that is what we are and how we've turned out to be. And Herzegovina just? Hercegovina/Hum was/is a massive part of Bosnia that has always played a massive part in the Serbian identity and it shouldn't be understated. Perhaps, although it is impossible to say and almost stupid to speculate, Bosnia wouldn't of experienced a war hadn't the Turks played their role in the Balkans ... because it would be all Catholic. PS What would've happened if the Slavs didn't come to the Balkans? Perhaps that's an even more intriguing question to ponder on than the Muslim issue ... I don't really know what you're trying to say in those last couple of paragraphs but it wouldn't be all Catholic. It would be all Orthodox and any remnants of a Bosnian church would have died out.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Apr 23, 2009 5:02:32 GMT -5
If turks never invaded the balkans, Man would of been to the moon hundreds of years earlier...
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Apr 23, 2009 5:08:12 GMT -5
I don't have specific figures. But they were obviously important, to the point where the word Vlasi became equivalent to a Bosnian Orthodox. Their historical presence is also evident in local toponymy, e.g. Vlahinja, Vlaskovo, etc. Even lexically there is an influence, e.g. trze (late born lamb) from tirdziu of the same meaning, or zarica, a type of cheese from the Vlach word zara, which is has its cognate in the Albanian word for butter-milk, dhallë. Not to mention contemporary documentation mentioning Vlach immigrants settling in Bosnia and Croatia.
What is a Vlach? A member of an ethno-linguistic group closely related to modern Romanians, speakers of Aromunian.
Orthodoxy is almost as new to Bosnian soil (minus Hercegovina) as Islam is, esp. when quantatively speaking.
Well, honestly speaking, I am not an expert on Bosnia (neither are you it seems), but references to Serbdom in Bosnian documents might have been a political step to claim legitimacy to the Serbian throne, or at the very least, lands in Serbia?
And Hercegovina of the Middle Age shouldn't be thought of in the same terms as today. The Orthodox element of the time was largely Vlach. The Ottomans, you see, taxed Vlachs with a special tax known as rusim-i eflak, consisting of a sheep and a lamb on St George's day every year. This enables us to estimate the number of Vlachs in the late fifteenth century Hercegovina, which was around 35,000, a huge number for a scarcely inhabited and arid region like Hercegovina in the Middle Age. And in the Smederevo region south of Belgrade, there were around 85,000 Vlach households in the sixteenth century; they would comprise the main group of immigrant Vlachs in Bosnia.
Fair enough, I'll rephrase. Speaking about how good it would be if Islam never entered the Balkans is as constructive and smart as speculating about how it would have been if the Slavs never invaded the Balkans, in which scenario Serbia wouldn't of existed like today and it wouldn't have been able to wage war against its neighbours. See, two can play your game.
|
|
CiKoLa
Amicus
Gotovina Heroj!
Posts: 3,728
|
Post by CiKoLa on Apr 23, 2009 5:10:48 GMT -5
In the Middle Age, Orthodoxy was strong only in Hercegovina; Bosnia was as Catholic as Croatia, and if we must assume that Bosniaks must've been something different than Bosnians today, hadn't the Turks so cruelly intervened, then they'd be Croats 100 times before they'd be Serbs.
This is actually well documented.
|
|
|
Post by tito on Apr 23, 2009 5:42:17 GMT -5
Hypothetically, imagine the Turks never invaded the Balkans. Obviously it would be a much more peaceful place, but what would the present day borders look like? What else would be of the Balkans, it’s people and its culture? Would the Hapsburg Empire have asserted more control? No doubt this would have been better. Just imagine the Balkans without the devastating, divisive and culturally destructive effect of islamicization for one thing. I’ve no doubt the place would be so much better. The Turks actually Never "invaded" the Balkans, they where INVITED by the local Balkan rulers who where always at war with each other before the Ottomans liberated the Balkans. PS. The only positive thing I can imagine in a scenario where the Ottomans didn’t liberate the Balkans is that there would be no Orthodox people west of the Drina river and that Dalmatia would still be a part of the Bosnian state.
|
|