WI: No Persecution/Expulsion of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction

[Gigachad3k]

During the decline and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Muslim (including Ottoman Turks, Albanians, Bosniaks, Circassians, Serb Muslims, Greek Muslims, Muslim Roma, Bulgarian Muslims aka Pomaks) inhabitants living in territories previously under Ottoman control, often found themselves as a persecuted minority after borders were re-drawn. These populations were subject to systematic genocide, expulsions, expropriation, massacres, and ethnic cleansing.

i know this sounds kinda ASB but how would things have turned out if the persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction had never happened? So what would the demographics of the area look like today in this case? How many peracentage and millions of Muslims would live there? What would the ratio of Christians to Muslims, etc. be like?

Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[stephen rude]

I think for that to happen, the Balkan Muslims would probably need to actively support the independence of the new Balkan states, which means there has to be some reason for why that's preferable to them instead of continued Ottoman rule. You'd probably also need to have the contraction happen as quickly as possible, so that the new states retain as much Ottoman institutions and influence as possible. Maybe you could have the Ottoman dynasty go extinct in the early 1800's leading to a lot of instability, Muhammed Ali break off with Egypt and the Levant, and have Russia and Austria be busy with some other war (maybe this happens during the Napoleonic wars and the bulk of their armies are in Northern Germany or something), so they don't just sweep in and grab control of the Balkans. The local Balkan magnates like Ali Pasha would then see the writing on the wall and declare independence, leading to the new Balkan states being dominated by the mainly urban Muslim elites who'd have every incentive to accommodate their local Christian populations, as they'd be outnumbered in a lot of areas.

Don't think that's necessarily a likely scenario, no doubt someone more knowledgeable on, might have a better idea of how to go about it, but that'd be my best bet on how to mitigate the persecutions as much as possible.

 

[Tosa Inu]

And if the fall is gradual, have the regional Nationalism of the affected people (Slovenes, Hungarians, Croats, Serbians, Greeks, Bulgarians, etc) actually being free from their respective Churches and took over more secular terms. Perhaps an earlier "French Revolution" that put a fully secular Nationalist State might give people ideas.

 

[stephen rude]

And if the fall is gradual, have the regional Nationalism of the affected people (Slovenes, Hungarians, Croats, Serbians, Greeks, Bulgarians, etc) actually being free from their respective Churches and took over more secular terms. Perhaps an earlier "French Revolution" that put a fully secular Nationalist State might give people ideas.

I think the issue is that the more gradual the process is, the more likely massacres and expulsions get, as the rebel and Ottoman armies spend years and decades fighting back and forth, trading territory and marauding through the Balkan cities and countryside, which is why I think it needs to happen as swiftly as possible ideally with the Ottomans being mostly unable to respond. Having the various nationalisms of the Balkans being more secular would help to avoid conflict, but I don't really see the incentive for why that would happen if the contraction is a gradual process led by the local Christians like OTL.

 

[raharris1973]

I agree that swiftness is a better bet for a more humane outcome than a slow grind with many counter-attacks. Although that is no guarantee.

Ironically @SpoookySpecter was treating an advantage of swiftness as the system crumbling down while the Russians and Austrians cannot get involved. He sees that as helping because it can leave the local Muslim Governors in charge, and they renegotiate power arrangements with local Muslim and Christian elites, knowing they are a minority, I get the logic, and I could see it working out. Especially if Constantinople does not reunify the OE and horn on in. However, I could also see Muslim minority regimes get into a bad spiral with Christian majorities, with revolts, paranoia, crackdowns, and more revolts.

I once argued the opposite, that swift dissolution of Ottoman rule in the Balkans, followed up by swift absorption of the Balkan lands into the Austrian and Russian empires, rather than small, nationally defined states, offered the best chance for minority cultures to survive OK. My logic was that the Austrians and Russians were used to running multiethnic and multireligious states already, and by the 19th century had lost their zeal for expelling, forcibly converting, or inquisitioning people not of the ruling elite's religion (with the exception of Russian anti-semitism or actions against recalcitrant rebel groups). The Austrians running Bosnia after 1878 took is at a matter of course that policy would be to protect Muslim lives and property like those of other citizens. The Russian state didn't have a dream or imperative of converting the Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkemen, or Azeri people into Orrthodox Christians, etc.

 

[stephen rude]

I once argued the opposite, that swift dissolution of Ottoman rule in the Balkans, followed up by swift absorption of the Balkan lands into the Austrian and Russian empires, rather than small, nationally defined states, offered the best chance for minority cultures to survive OK. My logic was that the Austrians and Russians were used to running multiethnic and multireligious states already, and by the 19th century had lost their zeal for expelling, forcibly converting, or inquisitioning people not of the ruling elite's religion (with the exception of Russian anti-semitism or actions against recalcitrant rebel groups). The Austrians running Bosnia after 1878 took is at a matter of course that policy would be to protect Muslim lives and property like those of other citizens. The Russian state didn't have a dream or imperative of converting the Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkemen, or Azeri people into Orrthodox Christians, etc.

That might be a good path as well, but is it really plausible for the Russians and Austrians to conquer all or even most of the Ottoman Balkans quickly enough for that purpose, especially if they're doing it without significant auxiliary forces of local rebels, which you'd presumably need to avoid to mitigate persecution?

 

[Gloss]

I agree that swiftness is a better bet for a more humane outcome than a slow grind with many counter-attacks. Although that is no guarantee.

Ironically @SpoookySpecter was treating an advantage of swiftness as the system crumbling down while the Russians and Austrians cannot get involved. He sees that as helping because it can leave the local Muslim Governors in charge, and they renegotiate power arrangements with local Muslim and Christian elites, knowing they are a minority, I get the logic, and I could see it working out. Especially if Constantinople does not reunify the OE and horn on in. However, I could also see Muslim minority regimes get into a bad spiral with Christian majorities, with revolts, paranoia, crackdowns, and more revolts.

I once argued the opposite, that swift dissolution of Ottoman rule in the Balkans, followed up by swift absorption of the Balkan lands into the Austrian and Russian empires, rather than small, nationally defined states, offered the best chance for minority cultures to survive OK. My logic was that the Austrians and Russians were used to running multiethnic and multireligious states already, and by the 19th century had lost their zeal for expelling, forcibly converting, or inquisitioning people not of the ruling elite's religion (with the exception of Russian anti-semitism or actions against recalcitrant rebel groups). The Austrians running Bosnia after 1878 took is at a matter of course that policy would be to protect Muslim lives and property like those of other citizens. The Russian state didn't have a dream or imperative of converting the Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkemen, or Azeri people into Orrthodox Christians, etc.

Russians did colonize the European Steppe though, also Circassian, Crimean Tatars etc.

 

[Tosa Inu]

That might be a good path as well, but is it really plausible for the Russians and Austrians to conquer all or even most of the Ottoman Balkans quickly enough for that purpose, especially if they're doing it without significant auxiliary forces of local rebels, which you'd presumably need to avoid to mitigate persecution?

The thing is, in case of a Foreign conquest, wouldn't the Muslims took up arms against Russia and Austria? Resulting in they becoming known as resistance, and thus, getting the 17-early 20th atandard treatment against guerillas that is further reprisals and massacre?

Maybe the thing that would retain more numbers of Balkan Muslim population is ironically an Ottoman Civil War where one Muslim Claimant stayed in Balkan, while the other make a new Sultanate in Cairo or somewhere else. That way, the Balkan Sultan ended up being the one who gradually accommodate Christian demands while retaining all the Muslim population.

 

[Višeslav]

I think for that to happen, the Balkan Muslims would probably need to actively support the independence of the new Balkan states, which means there has to be some reason for why that's preferable to them instead of continued Ottoman rule. You'd probably also need to have the contraction happen as quickly as possible, so that the new states retain as much Ottoman institutions and influence as possible. Maybe you could have the Ottoman dynasty go extinct in the early 1800's leading to a lot of instability, Muhammed Ali break off with Egypt and the Levant, and have Russia and Austria be busy with some other war (maybe this happens during the Napoleonic wars and the bulk of their armies are in Northern Germany or something), so they don't just sweep in and grab control of the Balkans. The local Balkan magnates like Ali Pasha would then see the writing on the wall and declare independence, leading to the new Balkan states being dominated by the mainly urban Muslim elites who'd have every incentive to accommodate their local Christian populations, as they'd be outnumbered in a lot of areas.

Don't think that's necessarily a likely scenario, no doubt someone more knowledgeable on, might have a better idea of how to go about it, but that'd be my best bet on how to mitigate the persecutions as much as possible.

I mean, the Albanians managed to develop a secular national identity and have 3 religions of the same ethnicity have a coherent identity. With the Serbs, I think the big difficulty is that the Serbian war of independence started not against Turks but against what we today would call Bosniaks and Serbian Muslims, which led to the view that "South Slavs speaking [the many named language but Serbs would call it Serbian] are no longer our brothers. They are Turks in all but language".

So you could have the Serbian war of independence break out over mistreatment by Ottoman regular troops or Janissaries from, say, Albania, rather than Slavic Muslims, which could lead the Serbs to be less hostile to the /Bosniaks/ (the term is anachronistic but you get what I mean, and thus not abuse them but try to keep the Serb identity able to include people who aren't Orthodox Christian. Some Muslims would still hold loyalty to the Ottomans, but with the Serbs less hostile, fewer could stay. You could have a similar thing with Pomaks in Bulgaria, and Bulgaria in the modern day is pretty friendly to its large Turkish population. Not sure about Greece.

Another good idea is to have Turkey go even more ethnonationalistic after abolishing the janissaries, so non-Turkish Muslims in the Balkans might come to identify with their Christian neighbors who speak their language, and be more hostile to the Turks. Perhaps you could also have Muhammad Ali's revolt gain widespread support among Arabs and Albanians, and have Turks start seeing non-Turkish Muslims as "no less rebellious than the Kaffirs".

Basically, don't have Balkan Muslims get rejected by their Christian neighbors for being too Muslim, but have the Turks isolate them by rejecting them for not being Turkish enough.

 

[Tosa Inu]

Another good idea is to have Turkey go even more ethnonationalistic after abolishing the janissaries, so non-Turkish Muslims in the Balkans might come to identify with their Christian neighbors who speak their language, and be more hostile to the Turks. Perhaps you could also have Muhammad Ali's revolt gain widespread support among Arabs and Albanians, and have Turks start seeing non-Turkish Muslims as "no less rebellious than the Kaffirs".

Basically, don't have Balkan Muslims get rejected by their Christian neighbors for being too Muslim, but have the Turks isolate them by rejecting them for not being Turkish enough.

You know the ironic part of this?

Before 19th century, the Ottoman Higher-ups were actually dominated not ny Turks, but by Bosniaks and Albanians, and converts from Greek, Serbian, and Jewish background. Ironically enough because Turks were deemed as potentially more rebellious than either Balkan Muslims nor fresh converts. And due to the timeline, they were never really out of the Ottoman Government until just before early 20th century.

The expulsion of Muslims in many ways, while still consisting of Genocide, is more akin to class warfare, as Poorer Rural Christian rebels massacring and expelling Richer Urban Muslims from the cities. While there are religious element playing into, they are arguably have more in common with French Sans-Culottes fighting against Burgeoise, or even Maoist China

 

[Višeslav]

You know the ironic part of this?

Before 19th century, the Ottoman Higher-ups were actually dominated not ny Turks, but by Bosniaks and Albanians, and converts from Greek, Serbian, and Jewish background. Ironically enough because Turks were deemed as potentially more rebellious than either Balkan Muslims nor fresh converts. And due to the timeline, they were never really out of the Ottoman Government until just before early 20th century.

Yes I'm well aware. I propose exactly reversing this thanks to rebellious Albanian pashas in the 1800s.

The expulsion of Muslims in many ways, while still consisting of Genocide, is more akin to class warfare, as Poorer Rural Christian rebels massacring and expelling Richer Urban Muslims from the cities. While there are religious element playing into, they are arguably have more in common with French Sans-Culottes fighting against Burgeoise, or even Maoist China

100%. Have you been reading Svetozar Marković perchance? I know he likes to emphasize the importance of viewing Balkan wars of independence through a class lens, though he's a socialist, so if you took a dump he'd view it through the lens of class.

 

[Tosa Inu]

Yes I'm well aware. I propose exactly reversing this thanks to rebellious Albanian pashas in the 1800s.

Isn't that what was caused IOTL Turkish Nationalism in the first place?

Maybe you should made the Bosnian/Albanian Pashas actually becoming rebellious in 1600-1700 instead of 1800. That way, enough Turks ended up as Pashas while Nationalism kicked in.

Also while I did read that kind of works regarding Ottoman Collapse in the Balkans, through class warfare, that kind of view did have economic truth on it. Muslims paid significantly less taxes and tarrifs, and most of the Ottoman taxes in the Balkans comes from Christian peasantries and middle class. Conversion to Islam is actually limited to rich people with connection who aspires to enter their family into the bureaucracy.

 

[Višeslav]

Also while I did read that kind of works regarding Ottoman Collapse in the Balkans, through class warfare, that kind of view did have economic truth on it. Muslims paid significantly less taxes and tarrifs, and most of the Ottoman taxes in the Balkans comes from Christian peasantries and middle class. Conversion to Islam is actually limited to rich people with connection who aspires to enter their family into the bureaucracy.

For sure, I didn't say I disagreed that the class element was huge, I just joked that the fact that a socialist like Marković viewed history through the lens of class wasn't surprising.

 

[Tosa Inu]

For sure, I didn't say I disagreed that the class element was huge, I just joked that the fact that a socialist like Marković viewed history through the lens of class wasn't surprising.

Yeah, sorry 🙈

By the way, the fact of Ottoman collapse in southern Balkan happened after French Revolution made it blurry between if the Muslim expulsion was more about religious genocide or class warfare, but if we took the Ottoman collapse in Croatia, Hungary, and Slovenes, That happens before French Revolution, it would be a much more obvious religious genocide, considering the Habsburgs did offer the Muslim Urbanites the option to convert and retain their property, even jobs within smaller settlements, rather than outright expulsion.

 

[Vabasion]

You can’t really have it. Ever since the conquest of Constantinople and establishment of Millet system the Raya were shepherded by the Orthodox Church by and large. The priests evolved from just priests into Vladika’s. The simple garb changed into elaborate robes and crowns that are worn today. They were given both secular and sacral power and they were not keen on sharing it. When Turks were strong they used to control the raya for the Ottomans, even coming up with mythology to justify the Ottoman rule. When Turks weakened they did the opposite and incited people to rebel. Either way - they’d not be keen to be challenged by a parallel Islamic institution. Hence why a constant of all Balkan conflicts of the period was - convert, leave or die. To avoid it you’d need Millet system to never come about or for church to never gain any kind of secular power.

Alternatively you need more successful French Revolution with Napoleon holding Balkans for a few decades and enlightenment ideas to spread. Or you’d need independence to be lead by Muslims as a provincial revolt and gradually to evolve into a national project.

As for outcomes - probably more prosperous Balkans since more people = more wealth.

 

[Višeslav]

You can’t really have it. Ever since the conquest of Constantinople and establishment of Millet system the Raya were shepherded by the Orthodox Church by and large. The priests evolved from just priests into Vladika’s. The simple garb changed into elaborate robes and crowns that are worn today. They were given both secular and sacral power and they were not keen on sharing it. When Turks were strong they used to control the raya for the Ottomans, even coming up with mythology to justify the Ottoman rule. When Turks weakened they did the opposite and incited people to rebel. Either way - they’d not be keen to be challenged by a parallel Islamic institution. Hence why a constant of all Balkan conflicts of the period was - convert, leave or die. To avoid it you’d need Millet system to never come about or for church to never gain any kind of secular power.

Alternatively you need more successful French Revolution with Napoleon holding Balkans for a few decades and enlightenment ideas to spread. Or you’d need independence to be lead by Muslims as a provincial revolt and gradually to evolve into a national project.

As for outcomes - probably more prosperous Balkans since more people = more wealth.

The crowns and such were worn by bishops before too no?

 

[Tosa Inu]

The crowns and such were worn by bishops before too no?

They (the Orthodox Church priesthood at least), were made into what is basically the Arbiter between the Christian commoners with the Sultan's Government, and the few Greek, Serbian, and Bulgarian Timariots and Armatoli still must report to their local Bishop while also reporting to their Muslim Commander.

Plus the one who decides the Devshirme into Janissaries and Eunuch, is theoretically the local Bishops since they were the ones providing the list of Birth and Baptism within their parish. Christians who wanted their sons to have better life as Janissaries or Eunuchs to support them will bribe their Bishops for enlisting their sons, and Christians who wanted their sons to avoid being either forced to fight for the Sultan, or getting their pee pee cut off will... Bribe their Bishops to have their sons records being either erased or altered with some sort of 'disability'.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

Really does make one wonder if a surviving HRE by the time of the Balkan revolutions could have inspired the official recognition of prince bishoprics in the ottoman domains.

 

[Tosa Inu]

Really does make one wonder if a surviving HRE by the time of the Balkan revolutions could have inspired the official recognition of prince bishoprics in the ottoman domains.

Ottoman fall in the early 1600s, before Ferdinand II's ascension, into the HRE fold (at least the Balkans) might just avert thirty years war because the additions of Orthodox Prince-Bishoprics will change the balance between Catholic and Protestant hold, since it adds third side whom both might want to befriend against oyher, that will definitely postpone the Catholic vs Protestant conflict for a while...

Until it exploded in more hilarious fashion in the ATL 1700s as a three sided war, four if some Turkish/Muslim Remnant wanted to reconquer the Balkans.

 

[Beatriz]

Ottoman fall in the early 1600s, before Ferdinand II's ascension, into the HRE fold (at least the Balkans) might just avert thirty years war

The gradual development of Hapsburg domains into Austria-Rumelia would be a natural outcome