Link between haplogroup E and poor economic performance

actually, key correlation is history...
best off are countries that didnot have wars in recent history, worst are countries that were destroyed economically due to the wars in recent history.... also countries that were under communism perform worse because, due to following wrong advices of IMF, transition from one to another system was in general done too rapidly and improperly...

It is true that wars damage a lot economies, but most of Europe was at war between 1940 and 1945. Only a few countries like Switzerland, Sweden or Ireland escaped WWII. Ironically Ireland was still the poorest Western or Northern European country in the aftermath of WWII. Its dramatic economic growth started much later thanks to US investments. Apart from former Yugoslavia (which does not include Macedonia or Albania, btw), wars don't explain why the Balkans are so much poorer than the rest of Europe.

another thing is isolation... e.g. Albania lived isolated during most of it s communist period.

Switzerland doesn't seem to have suffer too much from its self-imposed isolationist policy. They still don't want to join the EU, or NATO, or pretty much any other international organisation.


and there is another additional cause - climate...
people on north tend to be more hard working simply because it is so much easier to be hard working on 20 degrees Celsius than on 35 degrees..... it is just not equally easy to work in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and in Netherlands, Germany.... it is also a culture issue... while on south people could live well due to abundance of vegetation also during winter, people on north in past had to work more hard to survive...

So why is it that the Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese or Thai are so hard working ? Northern China notwithstanding, their climate is hotter than pretty much anywhere in Europe. Most of Japan is subtropical (a bit like Florida). Besides Americans work hard in hot states like California, Arizona, Texas or Florida too. Australians are much more productive than most Mediterraneans, even though their climate is even hotter.

so much about your haplogroup correlation...
in fact, this thread has racism in its basis...
and there is some unjustified anti-Greek sentiment swaying over messages..

Haplogroup E has penetrated all populations of Europe. It is not unique to Greece, not even greater Greece with the Balkans and South Italy. Some parts of Greece have a lower percentage of haplogroup E than Belarus or West Germany !
 
Haplogroup E has penetrated all populations of Europe. It is not unique to Greece, not even greater Greece with the Balkans and South Italy. Some parts of Greece have a lower percentage of haplogroup E than Belarus or West Germany !

Yes, almost all European countries have their small percentage of haplogroup E (exactly E-M78 in Central Europe and Balkans). But overall in Greece reaches over 25%, while in Belarus and Germany does not even reach 5%, Although figures vary from one sample to another.
 
800px-GDP_nominal_per_capita_world_map_IMF_2009.png

GDP per capita - image source

Haplogroup E (Y-dna)
422px-Haplogrupo_E-ADN-Y.GIF

image source

Good map ! Namibia and Botswana have much less haplogroup E and they are the two least corrupted African countries. Isn't that just amazing ! Botswana (index 5.8) is less corrupted than Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic. Namibia (4.4) is a bit more corrupted but less than Slovakia, Croatia, Turkey or anywhere in the Balkans.

In the Arabian peninsula, Yemen has the most haplogroup E and is the most corrupted (2.2). Oman (5.3) and the United Emirates (6.3) have the least haplogroup E and are the least corrupted.

Morocco and Algeria have about as much haplogroup E as Yemen and have similar corruption indices (3.4 and 2.9). Somalia and Angola are dark green spots on the map, and are among the very worst countries for corruption (1.1 and 1.9). Whoa, it's almost mathematical !
 
Good map ! Namibia and Botswana have much less haplogroup E and they are the two least corrupted African countries. Isn't that just amazing ! Botswana (index 5.8) is less corrupted than Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic. Namibia (4.4) is a bit more corrupted but less than Slovakia, Croatia, Turkey or anywhere in the Balkans.

In the Arabian peninsula, Yemen has the most haplogroup E and is the most corrupted (2.2). Oman (5.3) and the United Emirates (6.3) have the least haplogroup E and are the least corrupted. Morocco and Algeria is about as much haplogroup E as Yemen and have similar corruption indices (3.4 and 2.9). Whoa, it's almost mathematical !


There is a problem: Sudan, one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
That map is too simple although it's valid to get a general idea about distribution of haplogroup E.
 
It is true that wars damage a lot economies, but most of Europe was at war between 1940 and 1945. Only a few countries like Switzerland, Sweden or Ireland escaped WWII. Ironically Ireland was still the poorest Western or Northern European country in the aftermath of WWII. Its dramatic economic growth started much later thanks to US investments.

wars damage economies, but can also depending on circumstances influence differently moral of different nations....

Switzerland and Scandinavian countries has continuity of development not really interrupted by second world war destructions....
most other west European countries also had lot of peaceful periods in last few honderd years...
and many of them were collonial powers, which means they were for long periods of history in posession of natural resources that didnot belong to them, and in possession of cheap labour of own colonies....


in Balkan, ever since 15th century, most countries were slaves of Otoman empire till 19th century (some as Albania and Macedonia even until short before first world war, and Bosnia until it was taken over by Austro-hungarian empire in the end of 19th century which was essentially just changing crude slave owner for more sophisticated one... )..

having no state of your own means being someone's colony.... and that is not really good environment to develop economy or working habits....

In Serbia, between 15th and 19th century, Serbs did live only in villages...while towns were populated by Turks, and islamized Serbs who were by ordinary people denounced as "Turks" worse than Turks (e.g. I have read that ancestors of Bosnian muslims war leader Alija Izetbegovic were such islamized family that was ruling in Belgrade area, and were after liberation forced to leave Serbia) ...

thing is that in Ottoman empire in Balkan taxes for non-islamic population were extremely high, while taxes for islamic people were not existing..... so there was no chance to have own economy... working hard didnot pay off... more hard you work more you give to Turks (mostly to "Turks" who needed to live in comfort without working), and same is left to you...

as soon as there was (happened after WW2) period of few decades of peace and having own country, ex-yugoslavia was fast among more developed countries in Europe...

regarding non-Balkan countries with some haplogroup E....
how could African countries develop when they were colonies till quite recently... it meant that they have their own Turks and "Turks".... since they did not liberate themselves, once their Turks were gone after world war 2, they still had "Turks" in power and both "Turks"and Turks as owners of resources... in economical sense, Africa is still a colony... besides, climate there is terrible.... and big part of wealth of west europe is due to centuries of stealing resources from colonies like the ones in Africa... so, if moral values are changing, I would expect that west europe helps its ex-colonies to compensate for centuries of hampering their development and stealing their resources...... though now we have a case that ex-colony helps ex-owner in case of Brasil and Portugal....

Apart from former Yugoslavia (which does not include Macedonia or Albania, btw), wars don't explain why the Balkans are so much poorer than the rest of Europe.
former Yugoslavia does include Macedonia
and there was also war in Macedonia - between Macedonians and Albanians who live there... perhaps it was not so much covered in media because both sides were considered allies of west, so it was not easy to assign black and white roles to sides.... same as armed conflicts between muslims and Croats in Bosnia were hardly covered by west media....


Switzerland doesn't seem to have suffer too much from its self-imposed isolationist policy. They still don't want to join the EU, or NATO, or pretty much any other international organisation.

I wouldnot call that isolationism... they just refuse to participate in organizations that in their opinion will not bring them benefit..... they do not cut economy flows...

isolationism of communist albania meant it is not ready to coperate with either west or east countries due to ideological differences....
economic isolation of Serbia was enforced by UN and meant no flow of economy over the borders...

neither is comparable to a country choosing not to join EU or NATO....
it is like you compare imprisoned person placed in solitary with a person who doesnot want to be a member of local library or video club...

So why is it that the Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese or Thai are so hard working ? Northern China notwithstanding, their climate is hotter than pretty much anywhere in Europe. Most of Japan is subtropical (a bit like Florida). Besides Americans work hard in hot states like California, Arizona, Texas or Florida too. Australians are much more productive than most Mediterraneans, even though their climate is even hotter.
Japanese are exceptional in many cases...
the others are not much more efficent than Mediterranian or Balkan people...
 
So if I understand the E haplogroup in Europe is higher than the other haplogroups despite being a minority in most countries, because being a minority is capable of cornering power, reaching the highest levels of the countries and after exercise corruption, seems like science fiction.
 
If E is attributed to E Europe's responsibility for corruption to be a minority in each country, because the R in poor countries are still a minority are not able to bring their countries to the welfare and wealth?

Why do not you, if I be a minority in Europe has so much power that is able to come to power and profit also, why the R of Africa, the Middle East so they can not do anything for your country?
 
Switzerland and Scandinavian countries has continuity of development not really interrupted by second world war destructions....
most other west European countries also had lot of peaceful periods in last few honderd years...

in Balkan, ever since 15th century, most countries were slaves of Otoman empire till 19th century (some as Albania and Macedonia even until short before first world war, and Bosnia until it was taken over by Austro-hungarian empire in the end of 19th century which was essentially just changing crude slave owner for more sophisticated one... )..

having no state of your own means being someone's colony.... and that is not really good environment to develop economy or working habits....

and many of them were collonial powers, which means they were for long periods of history in posession of natural resources that didnot belong to them, and in possession of cheap labour of own colonies....

Most of Europe was at war most of the time from the Middle Ages onwards. France were pretty much at war all the time either against the Brits, the Germans or the Spaniards. Germany and Italy were divided for centuries by constant internecine wars. Compare to that the Balkans were one of the most stable regions of Europe from the Byzantine period until WWI. Consider that the Balkans remained part of the same big empire based in Constantinople/Istanbul for over 1500 years ! The empire just happened to change name, ruler and official language and religion once in 1453. One change of system in 1500 years, that is the ideal of stability by any country's standard.

It's easy to say that the Byzantines or the Turks were evil rulers who saw the provinces of their empire as colonies to be exploited. They were not more so than the Kings of France in Paris exploited the resources and people from the French provinces, or the Spanish rulers in Toledo/Madrid with the Spanish regions. If you bring up the fact that people speak different languages than Greek or Turkish in Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria and so on, the same is true for the regions of France, and Spain to a lower extent. Until the First World War hardly anybody could speak French in the lower half of France. They spoke Occitan, Provençal, Basque, Catalan... in hundreds of dialects, and few people outside cities felt French. In the northern half, people spoke Breton, Flemish, Alsatian German, in addition to the dialects of French. Nowadays the Balkans look like a mosaic of clear-cut countries with their own culture and language, but 100 years ago it wasn't the case. People spoke Turkish + local dialects throughout the Ottoman Empire, just like people spoke French + local dialects throughout France. The Ottoman Empire was dismantled and Turkish language abandoned outside Turkey, while France wasn't dismantled and benefited from compulsory education and the mass media to spread the use of Parisian French. Only 50 years ago over 80% of Italians couldn't speak Italian but just their local dialects, many of which are utterly unintelligible to Italian speakers. You just cannot think of the world a few centuries ago as if it was the world today. People didn't think in term of nationality until the late 19th century. Official languages weren't widespread until the middle of the 20th century.

regarding non-Balkan countries with some haplogroup E....
how could African countries develop when they were colonies till quite recently..

The question is rather why were they so little developed so late resulting in their being colonised so easily ?


and big part of wealth of west europe is due to centuries of stealing resources from colonies like the ones in Africa..

This is ridiculous. You can say that European colonists exploited local populations in Africa all you want, but saying that they were stealing natural resources from them is nonsensical, because it didn't belong to them any more than to anyone else. First of all, they didn't have property laws in Africa before the European colonisation. Secondly, they had no use of, or didn't attach much value to most minerals or precious stones mined by the Europeans. Thirdly, nowadays mining or petrol companies have the right to buy land and extract resources from it, be it in Europe, America, Asia, Africa or Oceania. It's not stealing if you buy the land. It is utterly ridiculous to think that the natural resources of a land belong to its native people. This is hunter-gatherer thinking. Since the time agriculture started and cities developed, human beings have acquired the sense of private property (and state property as well). Since when does the coal from under your feet, or the petrol in a field or gold in a river belong to the nation ? Even the Communists would say it is state property, not public property to be divided equally between "the natives" of the land. So no Westerners didn't and don't steal natural resources from the Americas, Africa or Australia from the natives because it didn't belong to them and in most cases weren't even aware of their existence or their usage. Even today, what would coltan or uranium be of any use to a Congolese ? What is bauxite or lanthanum be worth to an Australian aborigine ? How many of them even know what it is ?

Japanese are exceptional in many cases...
the others are not much more efficent than Mediterranian or Balkan people...

I didn't say efficient, but hard working. The Japanese are extremely hard working but not very efficient as they do not generate more GDP per capita than most Western countries. East Asians are all much harder working than Mediterraneans, despite hotter climate. That was the point debated.
 
Most of Europe was at war most of the time from the Middle Ages onwards. France were pretty much at war all the time either against the Brits, the Germans or the Spaniards. Germany and Italy were divided for centuries by constant internecine wars.
it is not comparable...
you will see why...

Compare to that the Balkans were one of the most stable regions of Europe from the Byzantine period until WWI. Consider that the Balkans remained part of the same big empire based in Constantinople/Istanbul for over 1500 years !The empire just happened to change name, ruler and official language and religion once in 1453. One change of system in 1500 years, that is the ideal of stability by any country's standard.
complete non-sense...

Byzantine empire and Ottoman empire are different in every way...
with Byzantine empire one could trade, make wars and make peace and negotiate...
with Turks rebelion meant this

220px-Empalement.jpg


and this

200px-Chele-kula.jpg


with Byzantine empire if soverenity was temporary lost, taxes were paid by local ruler who acknowledged Byzantine power... this was often symbolic thing... it was about local rulers siding with each other against Byzantine or with Byzantine against other local rulers....

with Turks taxes were per capita, calculated to leave to people not more than needed for survival, and collected in every village... if a village runs a way, neighbouring villages need to collect more....

there was also so called "payment in blood", which meant taking by force little boys occasionally, and taking them a way to Turkey to become brain washed into Turks and soldiers of Turkish empire...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danak_u_krvi


It's easy to say that the Byzantines or the Turks were evil rulers who saw the provinces of their empire as colonies to be exploited. They were not more so than the Kings of France in Paris exploited the resources and people from the French provinces, or the Spanish rulers in Toledo/Madrid with the Spanish regions.
complete and utter rubbish...
first of all Ottoman empire and Byzantine empire are not comparable at all...
Ottoman empire was unprecedented level of cruelty...
there is no trace of continuity between two.....

The question is rather why were they so little developed so late resulting in their being colonised so easily ?
who was colonised easily?
Serbs lost epic battle on Kosovo field when they were grossly outnumbered.... actually battle was kind of even, cause both rulers died...and it took some years for Turks army to recover and restart Balkan conquest..

and even after that it took around 70 years for Serb states to completely lose soverenity....
it is similar story with other Balkan people...

This is ridiculous. You can say that European colonists exploited local populations in Africa all you want, but saying that they were stealing natural resources from them is nonsensical, because it didn't belong to them any more than to anyone else.
if you have a house, and someone moves in and take valuables that you had in house, that is stealing... even if your house is in mid of nowhere and no laws exist...

First of all, they didn't have property laws in Africa before the European colonisation.
oh, so it is not stealing if there is no law...
so, you find yourself with other forum members in desolated small island with no state and no laws... is it ok if someone stronger confiscates all your posessions?


Secondly, they had no use of, or didn't attach much value to most minerals or precious stones mined by the Europeans.
yes, worthless gold, diamonds and oil....

Thirdly, nowadays mining or petrol companies have the right to buy land and extract resources from it, be it in Europe, America, Asia, Africa or Oceania. It's not stealing if you buy the land. It is utterly ridiculous to think that the natural resources of a land belong to its native people. This is hunter-gatherer thinking.
I am fine with being called hunter gatherer

Since the time agriculture started and cities developed, human beings have acquired the sense of private property (and state property as well). Since when does the coal from under your feet, or the petrol in a field or gold in a river belong to the nation ? Even the Communists would say it is state property, not public property to be divided equally between "the natives" of the land. So no Westerners didn't and don't steal natural resources from the Americas, Africa or Australia from the natives because it didn't belong to them and in most cases weren't even aware of their existence or their usage. Even today, what would coltan or uranium be of any use to a Congolese ? What is bauxite or lanthanum be worth to an Australian aborigine ? How many of them even know what it is ?
if you keep diamonds in your house and do not use it to cut stones, it doesnot mean it is useless to you and you do not need it so whoever is stronger than you can feel free to take it...


I didn't say efficient, but hard working. The Japanese are extremely hard working but not very efficient as they do not generate more GDP per capita than most Western countries. East Asians are all much harder working than Mediterraneans, despite hotter climate. That was the point debated.
As I said cultural development also counts....
People on Mediterranian could have good life more easily than people in those countries...



besides, whole topic is pointless as people from Balkan who work in west Europe are typically much more hard working than native people.... so it is not about people, but about context determined by history...
 
Byzantine empire and Ottoman empire are different in every way...
with Byzantine empire one could trade, make wars and make peace and negotiate...
with Turks rebelion meant this

220px-Empalement.jpg

You are reversing the roles. The most famous impaler in history is Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, known to history as Vlad III the Impaler. He was a Balkanic man impaling tens of thousands of Turks, not the other way round.


with Turks taxes were per capita, calculated to leave to people not more than needed for survival, and collected in every village... if a village runs a way, neighbouring villages need to collect more....

This is not a specificity of the Turks. Most despotic rulers in history, be them Chinese, Turkish, French or Russian squeezed their peasantry financially to get as rich as possible and keep lowly people in a state of semi-starvation that prevented them to defy authority. If it hadn't been the Turks in the Balkans it would have been someone else, not necessarily for the better. Do you think they would have been better off under Tsarist Russian rule, or under a home-grown tyrant like Vlad the Impaler ?


complete and utter rubbish...
first of all Ottoman empire and Byzantine empire are not comparable at all...
Ottoman empire was unprecedented level of cruelty...
there is no trace of continuity between two.....

No trace of continuity except the borders, the capital, the centralised system... The Turkish takeover of the Byzantine empire was very slow and progressive. The Turks arrived in Anatolia in the 11th century, but didn't complete their conquest until 1453. These four centuries gave them enough time to adopt many local customs and copy the Byzantine in quite a few ways. Besides, the Turks saw themselves as the heir of the Byzantines. The Seljuks first founded the Sultanate of Rûm, a word derived from Rome.


who was colonised easily?

The Africans.

if you have a house, and someone moves in and take valuables that you had in house, that is stealing... even if your house is in mid of nowhere and no laws exist...

Who are you referring to ? Did Europeans steal huts from Africans ? :wary2:


oh, so it is not stealing if there is no law...

We are talking about natural resources, not personal belongings. Even today, in many Western countries, if you find petrol or gold in your garden it doesn't belong to you but to the state. Even with modern laws you don't always own what is in the land you officially own. In the UK all land belongs to the Queen. If you buy a property in the UK, you only lease the land from the Crown for 1000 years (or less if you buy the lease from someone else).


so, you find yourself with other forum members in desolated small island with no state and no laws... is it ok if someone stronger confiscates all your posessions?

Why are you talking about possessions ? I am sick of idiots like you who can't read and misquote every line I write to outrageous proportions. I was strictly referring to natural resources.

yes, worthless gold, diamonds and oil....

What was it worth to them before Europeans came ? Petrol was worthless to anyone before it was used to make kerosene for lamps and fuel for combustion engines in the late 19th century.

As I said cultural development also counts....
People on Mediterranian could have good life more easily than people in those countries...

That's not the point debated. Stop changing the topic all the time. I argued that cold weather in northern Europe was not the reason why northern Europeans were harder working than southern Europeans. My examples were northern Europeans working in the southern USA or Australia, or East Asians working in hotter conditions than the Mediterranean. This thread started with the assumption that countries with more haplogroup E were poorer and had more unemployment. You said it was because it is easier to work when it is 20°C than 35°C. I pointed out the flaws in your argument. End of discussion.
 
You are reversing the roles. The most famous impaler in history is Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, known to history as Vlad III the Impaler. He was a Balkanic man impaling tens of thousands of Turks, not the other way round.

yes cause he follow the ottomans way,
he fought fire with fire,

just read about greek revolt,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasios_Diakos

they impale and burn him

there are many cases which If i write will take days,

Byzantines favor was to cut nose, ears, etc, blind 1 eye
to put you a stigma, (compare with later french tattoo)
turks favor was the impale horizontal and burn him like you cook a lamp in coal,
and take off the skin from your body.
besides all these tortures are known from the roman times,
from the cristian martyrs by romans and from the greek who were tortured by christians,


the impale, the cross etc are known in middle east from, far ancient,

even today some tribes impale goat heads as a mark of don't enter,
 
Last edited:
You are reversing the roles. The most famous impaler in history is Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, known to history as Vlad III the Impaler. He was a Balkanic man impaling tens of thousands of Turks, not the other way round.
No offence, but you speak about things that you obviously do not have a clue about.
Ottoman soldiers were well known for impaling...
I couldnot care less if Dracula also used it...
Dracula is one single Romanian noble... he is not representative of all Balkan people....
while on other hand impaling was one of the key ways of punishing that Ottoman army applied...

learn to distinguish behavior of individuals from organized behavior of certain group...
that is elementary logic....

mapping a behavior of single individual or small group of people into opinion about ethnic groups or wider regions they belong to, is a way of thinking typical for islamic terrorists... e.g. they are pissed off because of ill politics of USA goverment, so they map their anger to all citizens of USA because they do not distinguish the two.... it is utterly low civilization level... I thought you are much more advanced than that with your talks about individualism versus group behavior... but seems you are heavily into group behavior as well...




This is not a specificity of the Turks. Most despotic rulers in history, be them Chinese, Turkish, French or Russian squeezed their peasantry financially to get as rich as possible and keep lowly people in a state of semi-starvation that prevented them to defy authority. If it hadn't been the Turks in the Balkans it would have been someone else, not necessarily for the better. Do you think they would have been better off under Tsarist Russian rule, or under a home-grown tyrant like Vlad the Impaler ?
yes. anyone would be better than Turks...

why do you think so many Serbs moved from Kosovo and Macedonia to Austro-Hungaria where they served as military units on border....
if Austro-Hungary was same as Turkey, why would they move out, sometimes organized as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoba_Srba


No trace of continuity except the borders, the capital, the centralised system... The Turkish takeover of the Byzantine empire was very slow and progressive. The Turks arrived in Anatolia in the 11th century, but didn't complete their conquest until 1453. These four centuries gave them enough time to adopt many local customs and copy the Byzantine in quite a few ways. Besides, the Turks saw themselves as the heir of the Byzantines. The Seljuks first founded the Sultanate of Rûm, a word derived from Rome.
well, with your reasoning USA is clear continuity from state of native Indians...
same bloody country...



We are talking about natural resources, not personal belongings. Even today, in many Western countries, if you find petrol or gold in your garden it doesn't belong to you but to the state. Even with modern laws you don't always own what is in the land you officially own. In the UK all land belongs to the Queen. If you buy a property in the UK, you only lease the land from the Crown for 1000 years (or less if you buy the lease from someone else).

now I know I will never buy land in uk....

don't you think that perhaps all the land where zulu's lived belonged to Zulu king? Do you think someone leased it from him to dig for diamonds?


Why are you talking about possessions ? I am sick of idiots like you who can't read and misquote every line I write to outrageous proportions. I was strictly referring to natural resources.

did you just call me idiot?

you should learn to pay attention on what you write...
and not to try desperately to still be in right even after realizing that you were claiming something dumb or incorrect or impolite...
this is not a duel...
it is just a conversation...
so calm down...

when you claim something dumb, just acknowledge it and life goes on....
who cares anyway....

What was it worth to them before Europeans came ? Petrol was worthless to anyone before it was used to make kerosene for lamps and fuel for combustion engines in the late 19th century.
sure, I bet you have a room that you do not use...
let's move in some junky...



That's not the point debated. Stop changing the topic all the time. I argued that cold weather in northern Europe was not the reason why northern Europeans were harder working than southern Europeans. My examples were northern Europeans working in the southern USA or Australia, or East Asians working in hotter conditions than the Mediterranean. This thread started with the assumption that countries with more haplogroup E were poorer and had more unemployment. You said it was because it is easier to work when it is 20°C than 35°C. I pointed out the flaws in your argument. End of discussion.

you took one part of my climate argument and disregarded the second part... so I did bring it up again to remind you on complete climate argument...
 
Come on Maciamo, your attempt to paint the East Roman & Ottoman Empires as interchangeable is utterly ridiculous. You are clearly a very intelligent & knowledgable person and I love to pop in and read your posts but it's also no secret (well believe me it's obvious to a lot of us) that you have a massive Barbarian bias that interrupts your objectivity... btw, of course we would have preferred the yoke of your Hapsburgs over the completely alien Ottomans at any given stage of our history.
 
Last edited:
Why do I always sense a bit of anti-turkish feeling in this forum?

Turkish history is not that different from other european countries... they did their good and bad things.
 
The Turks certainly united Europeans (and slavic peoples a lot in particular) in a struggle against them... contributing a lot to the ethnic consciousness of peoples. Check out the Battle of Kosovo or the Battle of Vienna and the Holy League to understand how many of us have related to Turks through history.
 
yes. anyone would be better than Turks...

why do you think so many Serbs moved from Kosovo and Macedonia to Austro-Hungaria where they served as military units on border....
if Austro-Hungary was same as Turkey, why would they move out, sometimes organized as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoba_Srba

Your point of view seems to be exclusively pro-Serbian (are you a Serb by the way ?). The Bosnians and the Albanians became Muslims under Ottoman rule (perhaps to avoid the tax on non-Muslims). The Serbs resisted. Not everybody in the Balkans was anti-Turkish under Ottoman rule. It's especially from the mid-19th century, under European influence that people in the Balkans revolted and declared their independence one by one.
 
Your point of view seems to be exclusively pro-Serbian (are you a Serb by the way ?).

I think my origin is clear from my posts... I even explained several times in past that country that was written under my nick is country where I live and that I am originally from Serbia...

The Bosnians and the Albanians became Muslims under Ottoman rule (perhaps to avoid the tax on non-Muslims). The Serbs resisted. Not everybody in the Balkans was anti-Turkish under Ottoman rule. It's especially from the mid-19th century, under European influence that people in the Balkans revolted and declared their independence one by one.

Balkan is also Europe, so Balkan people could not have been under European influence....
they could have been under influence of national romanticism movements that were swaying through the Europe....

but it was not really like that..... romanticism is issue of elite and literate people while non-islamic people in Ottoman empire lived in villages and were mostly illiterate... educated part of Serbs lived in Austro-Hungary...that difference also helps understanding different nature of the two empires.... in Austro-Hungarian empire you may have been minority but you were also human being and had some rights, in Ottoman empire if you were christian you were nothing...e.g. law system applied is described in Serb saying "kadija te tuzi, kadija ti sudi" (kadija accuses you, kadija makes a sentence) "kadija" is person (a Turk or a "Turk") in charge of an area... he has absolute rights...he is the law and can do whatever he wants with you...

anyway, uprisings were completely done by Serbs from Ottoman empire so they are not likely to have been influenced by romanticism... it just happened that on start of 19th century due to Turkey being somewhat weaker than before, the opportunity to liberate themselves opened up for Balkan people... this was slow process... first big uprising than losing country again, than next big uprising, than diplomatic step by step liberation...


point is that rebellions against Turks never ceased and the military border of Austro-Hungary was moved forward and backward occasionally.....in 19th century however Turkish empire started to lose some of its power (also due to clashes it had with Russian empire), and that created opportunity for Balkan people to try to liberate themselves....

Btw. it is incorrect to say that Bosnians and Albanians became muslims... only some of them did...
only part of Bosnia Slavic people did become muslims... it is incorrect to call them Bosnians, because also Croats and Serbs who live in Bosnia and Herzegovina are native Bosnians... Bosna is just geographic term and it was one of the middle age states... it is not nationality... only after second world war those muslim people became separate nationality (Muslims written with capital "M") and only in 90s they took over name and identity related to Bosna... ridicilously, also Muslims from Serbia whose ancestors never lived in Bosnia call themselves Bosniacs....

Bosniacs are not more Bosnians than Bosnian orthodox and catholic christians who identify as Serbs and Croats... in fact so called Bosniacs would be least native of those 3 because they have some genetic and cultural/language admixture of Turks, while other two do not... Albanians are also not all muslims....Kosovo Albanians became muslims as that gave them power over Serbs who lived there... in albania proper many kept their christian religions....same as with name Bosniacs, name Kosovars is also invented in 90s to create media effect of creating impression and thus implicit assumption of them being more native..introducing those names was just a propaganda trick... there are no Kosovars, there are only Albanians from Kosovo...there are no Bosniacs, there are Bosnians that include not just muslim population but also catholic Croats and orthodox Serbs of Bosnia... muslim people of Bosnia who try to present themselves as exclusive inheritors of medieval pre-Ottoman history of christian people from the area is utterly shameless....
 
Your point of view seems to be exclusively pro-Serbian (are you a Serb by the way ?). The Bosnians and the Albanians became Muslims under Ottoman rule (perhaps to avoid the tax on non-Muslims). The Serbs resisted. Not everybody in the Balkans was anti-Turkish under Ottoman rule. It's especially from the mid-19th century, under European influence that people in the Balkans revolted and declared their independence one by one.


nope the first revolt is recorded in 1670 in trebizond,
their resist is known in many places like crocodile kladas, kalhmerhdes in crete, aouts in pontic people,klephtes, armatoloi,
the first organised revolt is under Orlof 1770 about brothers but became massacre due typical russia promised 27 ship and only 3 came,
the naval wars among greeks and turks are mentioned from 1750
greeks act like pirates in ships of ottomans that carry taxes etc,

if we pass the 1670 trebizond revolt then surely we go to 1750 about greek pirates and revolt of islands and enter venice empire,

Balkans were either venice either turkish, cause they both had secret relations,
the most organised is considered the 1770 revolt that means 18 th century

just remember in France revolution Greeks lived in Masalleia Marseille and served as navy, and troops
from marseille comes a very know Greek Hero

case of Napoleon and Epirus

you are correct about tax payers,

in fact in balkans only 4 nations existed at 1700, Greeks serbs turks and romanians.

Arnaouts were very well serving turkish army and also make troubles with turkish agas, bulgarians were lost and almost lost until St Stephan, and croats were Austrian -connected and Venice service, slovenians were in dilema of serbs austrian and italian.

fyrom bosna are modern artificial nations.
 

This thread has been viewed 100154 times.

Back
Top