I have the feeling that not many Turks actually settled the Balkans, and that people who claim to be related to Turks, like Muslims in Bosnia, actually aren't. The thing is whenever I look up some Ottoman vizier in the Balkans, he seems to be of Serb, Greek or Albanian origin. I know that many Janissaries later went into administrative offices, and they were former Christians too. I also know that many nobles converted to Islam, and also that Njegos in his "Mountain Wreath" talks about murdering converts, but never actually about Turks.
So my question is, when the Christians drove out the Muslims at the end of the Balkan wars, did they actually drive out their own kind?
I wasn't able to find a list of viziers, but here's a list of grand viziers:
I am also asking this because people from Istanbul look facially similar to Balkanniggers, but not as much to Turks from Antalya (at least the once I've met). Are they actually displaced Balkanniggers?
There wasn't much migration of actual Turks to the balkans. There was really not pull factor for settlers as the Ottomans had no concept of Physiocracy, or establishment of agricultural estates which was what prompted European to settle their respective colonies. rather, the local populations which converted to Islam eventually became more receptive to Ottoman culture- therefore were expelled as "Turks"
I suppose the same, but is there actual evidence for it? Like historians who detailed when Turks were settled or weren't settled in the Balkans?
Also, what happened to the native (Byzantine) population of Constantinopolis?
Well there's kardzhali in bulgaria which is still populated by turks to this day and there's some land between romania and bulgaria that was populated by turks but other than that i don't really know.
the turks that were living in balkans were often ex-yoruks, people that lived in the old turkic style but had joined the local populace in a more rural style of life, often ottomans encouraged these steppe-style people to move to the frontiers and settle
but after the balkanite nations gained their independence nearly all the turks and muslims in the area were either killed or deported.
from 1830 to 1922, 5 million deported and 5.5 million were killed in the european and eurasian lands ottomans had lost
when the greek army routed from the turkish rebels they burned down western anatolia along with smyrna. after peace was made the surviving peoples from the massacres of the balkanites were encouraged to look for the future and rebuild in anatolia, which they did
of course this isn't known in the western world because ottomans were the 'monsters, rapists and genociders'
i might be a little subjective though because i am a t.turk, my grand grand mother was one of the few that escaped from the genocide in circassia
Well if it didn't happen, there will be no records for it. there are no records for any significant Turkic migration to the Balkans during Ottoman rule.
>what happened to the native (Byzantine) population of Constantinopolis?
Those that converted to Islam today call themselves "Turks". Those that remained christian were expelled during the population expelled and today call themselves "Greeks"
You didn't understand the (genetic) maps. They say that a good portion of western Turks is unrelated to actual Turks, not that they are "returning Turks" - i.e. the people who live in western Turkey are genetically Europeans.
And the Turks killed 500,000 Greeks and Armenians, not the other way around. Get fucked Erdogan.
they are, turkish is a national identitiy not a genetic one, the modern turkish people only have about %15-20 turkic genes in them
armenians trained by russians killed tens of thousands of turks, kurds and other muslim armenians in the Van and the neighboring regions before the ottoman army acted, by the end of the independence war the dead ottoman civilian number in these eastern regions was 500 thousand
during the greek war of independence the number of turks and jews killed in greece in again, close to hundred thousand. here is a quote from a related article;
"The genocidal orgy in the Peloponnese ended only when there were no more Turks to kill. This so-called Greek war of independence hitherto was hardly a war at all, but mostly a series of opportunist massacres against defenseless civilians, women and children who were slaughtered because of their ethnicity and religion. "
whatever happened during these dark years two things are clear;
-turks didn't start it
-turks and other muslim ottoman civilians suffered the most out of any other group during ww1
if you can get your head out of greek historical bias you might see how this effects the relationship turkey has with the modern balkanites, but of course you won't because you are basically religiously focused on the 'barbarian' east
>armenians trained by russians killed tens of thousands of turks, kurds and other muslim armenians in the Van and the neighboring regions before the ottoman army acted, by the end of the independence war the dead ottoman civilian number in these eastern regions was 500 thousand
gonna a need a source on this one brah
>here is a quote from a related article
Are you talking about this one?
Hardly an undbiased source.
here is an article from Bruce Fein
here is a video of various pictures taken during this era
also read the book from prof. Mccarty; The Armenian Rebellion at Van
there are also some wikipages on this, but they mostly downplay the massacres committed by the armenians and russians. furthermore they don't even give numbers to the turks killed in greece during their genocides.
hardly, jews, orthodox christians, armenians and later latin christians had their own laws and rulers.
congrats you can use google search?
one turkish president, his name escapes me, asked to create an assembly of neutral scholars to discuss the armenian genocide in an unbiased debate, and even has opened the ottoman records to public.
armenians refused of course, because they don't want the truth, they just want money and land. that is why the dead armenians number has flown upo to 2.5 million from 600 thousand over the last 100 years.
this is why whilst the armenian 'genocide' and the greek 'genocide' are commonly known but the monstrous acts against the turks and muslims in the era are quickly forgotten.
in turkey there are more writers and books on the matter for both sides, but i can't post them for they are quickly dismissed.
i have given you sources, pictures and names, you have only refuted with memes.
do you have any evidence to refute the atrocities committed against muslims in the balkans, eurasia and anatolia?
>an article and a book from two known shills
epic sources, pics and names, m8
anyway I just asked for a source for that one bit and you provided it (albeit not a reliable one) so let's not derail this thread with your TIDF bs
can't give you much, nearly all the mosques and ottoman government&cultural buildings were destroyed during the genocides
There weren't any big turkish migrations to the balkans all the 'turks' living there were muslim balkan people so when the christians were genociding muslims there theyvwere actually killing their own with a different religion.
they settled mostly in urban areas, meaning mostly towns they founded themselves or around forts, and in larger centres, in rural areas they usualy got land from the sultanate for military service, where after a few generations they formed a kind of overlord class, not exactly feudal
bulgaria and bosna was where major populations of turks existed, if you dont count grece but that obvious, these mostly mixed trough generations, and were always a minority
the rest was just local muslims, known in local languages as various derogatory terms for 'convert', such as 'poturice' etc... which realy were seen as traitors by everione else, and people made this very clear every time there was a uprising, and there were lots of uprisings
thats kind of one of the reasons why turks didnt realy settle that much, or rather they did on occasion, but they couldnt last a day without military support, so as soon as this was gone, even for a moment...
another thing is it doesnt seem ottoman demographics realy went in turkish favour, they were importing masses of people from est. europe at any point during the empire, so it might just be they were fucked in some way as a population, possibly drained by constant wars and streched too thin out across two continents, and so the need was to bring more people in, weather as slaves or child soldiers, rather than to spread people out
What this anon said is mostly true. And what others pointed out in the thread - that there wasn't settlers as European nations had in the New World.
There were a lot of converts motivated either by force or the economical advantages they would have if they accept Islam. In Bulgaria these are called "pomaci" and reside mainly in the Rodopa Mountains and are residing there to this day.
On this subject I was part of a team of interviewers from my university where we visited "convert" villages who exist till this day. Lots of interesting stories but one thing is that in this case the people identify as Bulgarian but are either atheists or follow a local form of Islam.
Either way whatever turkish presence there was on the Balkans a lot of them left after each nation at one point or another gained their independence. Mostly out of fear for retaliation.
These genetic studies are always badly done.
First they only feature the people who'd volunteer for such a study, so city dwellers into academia. No mountain shepherds, no ghetto gypsies.
Secondly the surveys are done only in major cities, and then this pretty creamy and oval shape is drawn to fit them, despite no information whatsoever being available to support it.
Regardless, I've traveled a lot around the Balkans since I took photos of "holy places" and small old churches, and many of them are in secluded communities.
People in these mostly look like each other, and you cant tell them apart; you cant say what country you are in just by looking at the faces.
This is also true for the coastal parts of Anatolia, up to the point where I've been, and Syria. In inner Anatolia you get noticeably different looking people.
The conclusion I've drawn from this, which is entirely anecdotal of course, is that its more like Turkish citizens in coastal areas are mostly Muslim Greeks, rather than Greeks being Turkish left over from Ottoman times.
This can further be supported by more anecdotal "evidence" when you ask the locals if you think they have Turkish relatives in the past, they all get very upset and say that if a European would to ever marry a Turkish man, they'd be hated and ignored by the rest of the community, isolated and thrown out. This may be just modern nationalism speaking instead of sense, or it may hold some truth.
You should also consider that the Ottomans didnt build any settlements. They only further developed existing big cities, which already had people living there, some economy and crafts, and some administration. Thus suggests not many Turkish people were required to move, and if you arent required, why would you? Why move from your home in Anatolia to some other land, that was just thorn apart by war, where people hate you and you cant understand their language, culture or religion, or even food initially?
>Well there's kardzhali in bulgaria which is still populated by turks to this day
Populated by turkish speaking muslims, not by asians. Those are bulgarians/greeks who converted to islam and took the turkish language. Basically pockets where the settlement/culture accepted marrying into ottomans, and not actual asian people moving there.
Why would they, the place is not very good to live in, nor strategic to force migration into. If asians would move to the balkans, they'd pick another city to go to.
The Ottomans arent the same as the Turkish. Anatolians, whom we call Turkish today, were living in as bad conditions as the Balkan Christians.
It was the Sultan reigning as a supreme despot everywhere, and if the Balkan people were "slaves" as pop culture here suggests, then so were the Turkish on the other side of the strait.
True but Ottoman subjects who were following Islam had privileges compared to "infidels" which was the majority of the Balkans. Especially in its early days.
The Ottoman Empire was a multi-cultural Empire but part of its policies was dictated by its state religion - which was Islam.
One of the post you are pointing me to doesnt even agree with your narrative.
Regardless, there is no reason to settle in Kardzhali. Its not strategic, its not economic, its not cultural. Its a stupid location for organized movement, stupid location for money driven immigration, stupid location for culture or tourism driven movement of people. Its a retarded place to move into.
Assuming that the Turkish people werent retards, they wouldnt go there, of all the possible places, nor would the Sultan send them there.
From what is known to me.
Almost every town in Bulgaria during Ottoman rule had a turkish quarter, some towns also had jewish quarters as well.
The rural areas were mostly turk free with the exception of specific turkish vilages, usually located near large farmland held by turkish officials.
As with the ethnic makeup, in what seems logical, there were little actual interbreeding with the local population.
Several reasons for that. The main one was religion. In the ottoman times religion was a major factor in the self-determination of the populace living on the balkans.
Changing ones religion was mostly done by force In Bulgaria that happened in the Rodopa mountain region. Much like it happened in Bosnia. That population is called pomak, they became isolates since neither turks afterwards considered them one of their owns nor the christian bulgarians did.
The convention to islam was done willingly mainly by ambitious traiders and merchants who used the preferential laws and attitude that the ottoman empire had toward the muslims.
As such the only real mix of the turkic people with the local population was by force. During the initial invasion and then sporadically, while suppressing various rebellions.
Since the actual turkic people were a minority, their descendents during the 5 centuries became more like the local population. But that was once sided process the children of those unions became turks in the eyes of the local population.
However after the revolution for independence, the largest part of the turk population was deported.
That left only compact areas with turk population.
There is no real mix in population even today. Turks usually live in tight communities.
Those are my two cents on the issue.
I apologize in advance for linking wikipedia. I am serious about a discussion and not shitposting but:
>The town developed largely due to its position on the trade routes during the period of Ottoman rule. However, it remained a small town. During the 18th century, Turkish brigands used this remote town as a hideaway and supply point, and the town was later named after their leader Kırca Ali.
Why would it be stupid? And the Sultan, as far as I know, rarely if ever has send settlers anywhere.
he did sometimes, well, the sultanate did trough buerocratic wathever, but mostly to towns and cities, craftsmen and clercs and such
also distrbuting pashaluks and similar land grants is kind of like 'sending' people there
That makes sense and I agree. A fair point.
And I think this anon captures what I am failing to explain myself it seems
>Since the actual turkic people were a minority, their descendents during the 5 centuries became more like the local population. But that was once sided process the children of those unions became turks in the eyes of the local population.
The town developed as a fortress during Thracian times, but was later destroyed, first by Greeks (as the thracian city Perperikon), then by Bulgars (as a the greek city Archidopolis or some such).
During Bulgar times it was called Gorna Krepost (the Upper Fortress) and barely anyone lived there. It only become important and populated again when additional fortresses were built in the area, and it became a link between them. This continued after it was taken by the Greeks, as they wanted to have it as a buffer against traditionally Bulgar territory, the same way the Bulgars used it against traditionally Greek land.
After the city enters Bulgaria from Byzantium again, its called Vishegrad (High Town, Upper Town) and later when it falls to the Ottomans people from it run away to the mountains. During Ottoman times people slowly returned to it, making it a proper town again, and because of that some traded moved through it. Its significance as a fortress was no longer there, because the Ottomans controlled land on all sides of it, for hundreds of kilometers, and because castles on hills were no longer as relevant in the first place due to military technology.
So yes, it had trade routes going through it, just like every single town anywhere on the planet. Trade routes are created around towns same as towns around trade notes. However it was the least relevant city in all of Thrace. The first time its population was measured was in 1887, when it had a total of 644 citizens. Today it has around 48000. Unless you think that so many ethnic asian Turkish people moved to it after the Russians conquered it, I dont think you are correct in your assumptions.
Kardzhali had like 500 people total population during Ottoman times. It was of no significance.
It was significant as a border between Bulgaria and Greece before the Ottomans, and later as a border between Bulgaria and the Ottomans after the Russian conquest, but during the actual Ottoman imperial times it was irrelevant.
well, the european part of turkey that is smaller in size than Macedonia have 10 million people alone, excluding the population of Istambul, so it comes to reason many were actually removed from the territory of the balkans without getting themselves offed to inhabit that small patch of land.
Hmm didn't made my homework there eh? Yes the numbers are off I can agree on that and you have your points. What baffles me then is how and why then the majority of its current population identifies as turks or turkish descent?
The thing is, as I mentioned in an earlier post, that converts weren't uncommon or unheard of but had their own specific name and in a sense their own status (not being fully bulgarian because of their religion and not being accepted as turks because of their ethnicity).
Either way the idea of OP's question was rather there was immigration of turks to the Balkans during Ottoman rule?
Is the answer yes and no? As in yes but not as we imagine in a traditional way?
Kardzhali had around 10k people before communism, and around 55k people after communism. There is no industry related reason for this, and its silly to think people from Turkey would move to an atheist country, so those have to be Bulgarians moving there.
The documents for commie activities are kept secret, but I think its reasonable to speculate that Muslims from around Bulgaria were moved to one place (to be happier together, or to satisfy the Christian population which disliked them being near, or to keep them in check), and that place was chosen to be Kardzhali.
As for the density of south-east Thrace, it has to do with Muslims fleeing Greece (Muslims, not necessarily asian Turkish people) after they were persecuted there, and later fleeing Bulgaria, after the communist government started working on its state wide atheism program, which was of course anti-islam.
So this strip of land, the European part of Turkey, would contain many of the Muslims from Bulgaria and Greece, but those wouldnt be necessarily actual Turkish people hailing from Asia, and there is no reason to believe they would be. If you travel today you wouldnt be able to tell them apart just by their features, only by their language and relative wealth, and culture expression in clothes and jewelry.
You make the mistake to think of nations before the rise of nationalism.
There were no "Bulgarian people" any more than the language and the religion. Patriotism was tied to religion only, and nothing else, for example.
The idea of dying for your country and your people was a foreign one, that nobody would take seriously.
Anyways, if you are a man born in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century, how easy would it be for you to identify as Ottoman? You technically are, since Bulgaria doesnt exist, probably never will exist again. And when you are a child, before you can contemplate faith and religion, you see the Christians suffering and the Muslims getting rich, wouldnt you feel that you should be an Ottoman Muslim?
Its not hard to imagine people who are Europeans - Slavs or Greeks, turning to Islam and taking to calling themselves Ottomans, and later their families saying they are Turkish.
Also the language barrier is gone, since the official language is Turkish, you need to know it for administration, to trade and work with documents. Everybody knew the Turkish language of the day, it was the state language and language of commerce.
I feel it is these Muslims that we are talking about, who are native Europeans, but converted to Islam and later when nationalism happened defined themselves as Turkish people. I dont think however that they are asian. I try to use this word often in my posts, since that is indeed the question - was there a migration of asian people into the Balkans. Nations and religions should be left out.
it realy didnt go that way tho
ethnic identity was strong precisely because there was no nation state
language, customs, dress and religion were all the identity people had, but it was a distinct and recognisable identity, even from vilage to vilage and town to town
in fact people had more 'groups' recognised among themselves as clearly distinct entities before nationalism leveled it all and put it under one umbrela name
you can be sure some bulgarians, for example, identified specificaly as bulgarian-from-this-region/village/town, that they had their own traditions, beliefs and customs as well as a religious denomination, their own distinct dress, their own dialect, their own crafts and trades, there own names and surnames, a whole identity based on tribal backrounds etc. it realy wasnt as if people didnt know who they were just because they didnt have a flag or a passport, and crossing over like what youre describing was far more problematic than that
i know thats not the point of your post but any way
Thank you for the input and I should really take my time with my posts because if it is necessary to explain the concept of how people identified before the idea of a Nation then I apparently structure my arguments or comment rather poorly. I'm saying this because I am aware of these things and while English is not my native language there is no excuse.
That said I see now where you are going with this and why you emphasize on the word Asian. However I don't fully agree with you on the subject that, despite the concept of "bulgarian people" (or any other Balkan population) wasn't around in the 17th century, from what I've read am made to believe that the cultural and linguistic differences may have been a barrier preventing the local populace to assimilate into Islam that easly.
That being said, if you haven't guessed it I am Bulgarian myself and hold this believe without suffering from a inferiority complex that my ancestors have been under Ottoman (or Byzantine) rule etc etc etc. I'd like to study history objectively as possible (because I doubt its possible we ever learn the full truth).
I also understand that my argument seems flawed if you raise the question: How and where did then these people come from if they are not asian settlers during the Ottoman rule?
I'd ponder over that for a while.
>language, customs, dress and religion were all the identity people had, but it was a distinct and recognisable identity, even from vilage to vilage and town to town
Exactly, and thus there was no Bulgarian identity, or Turkish identity.
It was different from community to community, and you cant say that the people of X settlement were Bulgarian or Turkish during Ottoman times.
>How and where did then these people come from if they are not asian settlers during the Ottoman rule?
They didnt come from anywhere. The population of the Balkans didnt drastically increase when the Ottomans took over. Some people just took to Islam, and the asian style of extravagance and showing off, and their culture of displaying what wealth you had.
All of Europe was taken aback by what they called "oriental splendor" and it was basically pop culture for a while.
A similar thing happened in the Roman Empire, when contacts with the germanics led to many youths in Rome to wear pants and leather, and grow long hair and beards, because it looked cool to them.
That would be the case if your theory is true and I'm not saying it isn't but it doesn't convince me to be honest.
What you describe as "oriental splendor" occurred in Western Europe and not as early as the 18th century when tales of the Sultans and Istanbul were like out of fairy tales.
The Ottomans came as conquerors and stayed as such for centuries. I find it hard to believe that local populace just embraces, what essentially they were at the time, the enemies culture. Especially since they had their own culture, tradition, language and religion.
Why do you think that a family from some mountain village that only go to the town to exchange sheep wool for salt twice a year cares about who rules them?
Before radio, TV, newspapers, people wouldnt know or care about these things. Your world was much smaller, you were born, lived and died in your small circle of neighboring settlements, and such a thing as a "culture enemy" would only be known to you if the village priest decided to go full renegade and preach about it. And even then, it would only be the unemployed young single men who take up such calls, as is always the case in history, not the majority of population.
Live and let live is the natural state of things, there was no culture or religions war on a large scale. Just look at the numbers of people part of the Bulgarian revolutionary movement, and what percentage they were of the total Bulgarian population. Most people didnt care.
I don't think even for a second that to the average farmer it matters who is in charge. Feudal Lords in Medieval Bulgaria where just as bad if not worse before the Ottomans came. One might even argue that because of the Ottomans structure and conquering vast amounts of territory, uniting them in one state, eliminated fighting petty feudal wars from which the average joe suffered the most. That is at least until the Empire went into decline and brigands were roaming and pillaging villages. But that's a whole other story.
Still I think you underestimate the idea of the "foreigner" and that conquered populaces don't take on kindly on their invaders. Especially if their whole situation doesn't improve which certainly wasn't the case for the majority of this population.
As far the Bulgarian revolutionary movement its pretty bad with organization but that would be a whole other topic. I'll only add that I doubt the populace wasn't indifferent but rather scared. And that is because at that time the idea of nation states even here started to dawn.
I think you overestimate how many people saw a foreigner.
Cities did, surely. Villages? Not really. Small settlements housed the vast majority of people before industrialization, which came notoriously late to the Balkans.
Before that most people lived in low population communities, and probably didnt get any special attention from the Ottomans.
This foreign hatred you speak of may have existed, but it was exclusive to cities, and thus to very few people who were always watched by the Ottoman administration, and not to the general population spread around in farming communities.
There were two sorts of Muslims in the Balkans, native converts and Anatolian Turks who were installed in the Balkans in the first Ottoman centuries (the Turkish-speaking Muslim population was mostly descended from these).
Let's take Greece for example. In Crete, the majority of the Muslims were native converts while in Thessaly and Macedonia they were installed Turks.
This foreign hatred you speak of may have existed, but it was exclusive to cities, and thus to very few people who were always watched by the Ottoman administration, and not to the general population spread around in farming communities
But the turkish population on the Balkans was mostly urban compared to the native pre-ottoman people who were mostly rural.
Also how long do you believe it would take for the rural communities to embrace this culture so they fit in? There were over the centuries not one uprisings. True they were regional, squashed rather swift and harsh and doubtfully anyone past two towns even heard of it happened but I read those as signs that there was a us vs you mentality.
>This foreign hatred you speak of may have existed, but it was exclusive to cities, and thus to very few people who were always watched by the Ottoman administration, and not to the general population spread around in farming communities
Meh fucked up the greentext.
no, youre wrong, maybe you dont get how it works in the balkans
before national identity you had your family, your tribe, and your locality, like vilage, or town, with which you got your language and basic culture, and depending on region and other factors, you had your religious denomination
now, even tho there was no national state or idea of 'nation' in the nationalistic sense, there was a clear idea of ethnic belonging, since this was based on notions of 'your people', like rod and narod, meaning 'people' in the tribal and teritorial sense, not national
so even tho peoples lives never realy went outside the frameworks of family-tribe-vilage-church, they had a clear idea of what 'people' they are, at least in that tribal sense (well most had, vlachs were a bit more complicated and in the mountain borderlands things got confusing depending on churches but any way) even if it didnt much matter in day to day life and didnt limit them teritorialy, various ethnicities lived side by side all over the place precisely because the empires verent national, families sometimes even changed denomination and surname specificaly to cross to another 'people' so the notion clearly existed
whats confusing to us todey maybe, is that it wasnt exactly a national identity, it had to do more with custom and culture and region/territory, and a lot to do with tribes and religions, but it was a distinct thing that meant a lot to people, sometimes it meant everithing, i mean people were as ready to kill and die for that as they were later on for things like nation and wathever, because realy other than a few goats and a stone hut, their belonging to a 'rod' was all most of those people had in the whole universe
youre technicaly wrong and precisely so
in urban areas there was little resistance after final subjugation, maybe a vasal ruler would betray istambul but that would get dealt with soon, ottomans would then develop the places further, settle their own urban people, build forts and military or trade infrastructure etc...
the main opposition was from the rural lands, that werent that easy to control, that were still practicaly tribal, and where people realy resented both foreign rule and foreign imposition of religion, the taxes they had to pay regardles of wether they were more or less than before, and especialy the tax in male children, as well as many other things that come up when youre part of a wast militaristic empire
so most resistance was rural, and up in those mountains, hills and forests it was a clusterfuck of guerrila actions and mutual terrorising and reprisals that often ended in swats of mass murder
akinci means raider in turkish, they were just irregular light cavalrymen living on the borders conducting raids into hostile countries that joined the army when there was war. some of them (often the leadership) had families or clans with them, but they were mostly a militaristic organization
they were basically land privateers
we see some good examples of these raiders in the north black sea region, where akincis would go into slavic land, take slaves and disrupt trade
this method of double taxation and double raiding, basicly becoming a habitant of a war theathre made some parts of the balkans and southern hungary completely unhabited
shit was bad, the idea that you were left alone in peace in your village is wrong
you had a much comfier life living under X rule in a town, without a fort
bosna is a strange exeption to much of what were talking about in this thread
probably due to the whole bogumil thing and the subsequent crusades, practicaly right before ottoman conquest
as well as austria taking bosna before the whole balkan thing realy started, so the local muslims werent as devastated
bosna is a strange place
i think a ottoman vezir even said so, something like, 'of all the lands and regions of this worls, a stranger place iv never seen in my life'
not to mention that retired jannisaries got pension and child support.
it also wasn't unheard of for retired high ranking jannisaries to be given land back in their birthplaces under the timariot system
>There were over the centuries not one uprisings. True they were regional, squashed rather swift and harsh and doubtfully anyone past two towns
I think you have a wrong image of an uprising. The whole country would plot together before rising up, and everybody heard of it. I think there was a considerable hatred of the Turks throughout the ages, and the Christian taxes and devisrme were felt by every household.
There were Turks in Macedonis, they made up the majority of the city population and the field villages, thus they were called "polyani", ie field Turks. They were expelled after the balkan wars. Now, how many of these were Turks or just converted locals is unknown, the Albanians at that time were called Turk "arnauts", arnaut meaning bandits.
Iirc, Ottoman rule consisted mostly of annual tribute and the other shit, but they also granted a good deal of autonomy to the provinces in the balkans. The Vovoide would have to be ottoman approved, but Turks for example couldn't own land, settle there etc. etc. This made the local population a bit more "accepting" I guess
As a turk born and raised in Bulgaria, before i start reading whatever you guys alredy wrote, i want to tell you this:
>The Karamanid state was eventually terminated by the Ottomans in 1487, as the power of their Mameluke allies was declining. To never again gather and threaten the integrity of the Empire, they displaced the entire population to the last man. Some were resettled in various parts of Anatolia. Large groups are accommodated in northern Iran on the territory of present-day Azerbaijan. The main part is brought to newly conquered territories in north-western Bulgaria—Ludogorie. Another group of what is now northern Greece, southern Bulgaria—present-day Kardzhali region and Macedonia. Ottomans founded Karaman Eyalet from former territories of Karamanids.
Basicley the turkish in those balkan regions are from deep Anatolia, karamanids sent into excile in different parts of the Ottoman empire. We kept our tradiotions in course of history by marrying eachother and stuff.
The Karaman Beylik is the answer to your question. Therefore..
>they came from somewhere
Which i don't know why, perhaps it's the same old communist propaganda machine, that still continue to exist in our mind, we never really read or learn about the great excile of the karamanids into the new conquered from the ottomans lands. I mean, 12 years in school in Bulgaria and we never mentioned it. Yet, this is the exact reason why the turkish are mainly on the north east and Kirdzhali region. It's like it is made on purpose not to tell this so that turks and bulgarians keep eating eachother in ignorance while the politicans steal like there is no tomorrow. I don't know.
not so sure bout that m8
>I'd like to study history objectively as possible (because I doubt its possible we ever learn the full truth).
I've got just the book for you :^)
Tzvetkov, Plamen S. A History of the Balkans: A Regional Overview from a Bulgarian Perspective. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1993.
>Tzvetkov makes no pretense of objectivity, but he provides an interesting study of the Balkans from the viewpoint of a Balkan nation often overlooked by modern Western historians. This work will benefit students interested in the Bulgarian outlook on Balkan events.