The primary distinction between Croats, Serbs and Bosnians is religion, correct? So, before the prominence of the Ottoman empire in the Balkans (and the ensuing conversions of Christians to Islam), was there any group known as the Bosnians? Basically; are Bosnians descended of Serbs and Croats that converted under Ottoman rule?

This one is likely for /u/rusoved:

When I took Russian in college, my prof said that Old Church Slavonic was close enough to modern Russian to be intelligible to churchgoers (he compared it to Middle English/Chaucer for English speakers).

How accurate is this, and could Old Church Slavonic be used as a lingua franca across the Balkans? Or were most people multilingual in any case? I suppose I'm asking about the period of Austro-Hungarian control over the region.

Thanks so much for the AMA!

After the Balkan Wars, the lands of what is today FYROM/Macedonia was given to Serbia and became Southern Serbia.

Is there any evidence that people in the lands of FYROM considered themselves Bulgarians before that happened? For example, letters or newspaper articles mentioning the name of the ethnicity that the majority believes to be, before 1912?

How come the Slavic languages where so successful in supplanting the native Latin or Greek languages everywhere in Balkan except for Romania?

Was there any resentment in the Balkans to the Albanians readily adopting Islam (even if just in name, as I understand large numbers weren't fervent believers) and then assuming important roles within the Ottoman government. I mean something like one fifth of all Grand Viziers were ethic Albanians. Did the other, Christian, groups find issue with this?

A some questions on the Bektashi order:

-Spiritually, the Janissaries were members of the Bektashi Sufi order, which has very strong Shi'i sympathies and sees the Safavid leader, Shah Ismail, as a spiritual leader (Birge, The Bektashi Order of Dervishes). Why then, did the Janissaries stay loyal to the Ottomans? They were also loyal to the strictly Sunni Sultan Selim when he was trying to seize the throne and when he was putting down Shi'ism in Anatolia — this also strikes me as odd. I know the Sunni-Shi'a division is not completely set in stone (especially for groups like the Bektashi) but openly fighting against a spiritual leader of your order seems a bit out there.

Was it purely a loyalty issue, ie despite spiritual love for Shah Ismail, their political loyalty was still to the Sultan? Was it an ethnic issue? The Janissaries were made up of captured Christian converts to Islam from the Balkans, while most of the Safavid supporters in the Ottoman Empire (known as Kizilbash) were born Muslim.

-To what extent do today's Bektashis in the Balkans and Turkey identify with 12er Shi'ism? Do they perform Ziyyarah to the Imams' shrines?

I hope my question doesn't stray into territory that is too recent for this sub. However, I hope the mods will be lenient, as I have never really studied the disintegration of Yugoslavia, but have always found it rather interesting.

My first question regards the actual disintegration. How was resentment towards the mostly Serbian ruling class so great that it catalyzed armed separation? This has always been difficult for me to understand. Further, I understand the sequence of events leading to the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, but why was the Independence of Bosnia so much more complex? Was it because it was closer, geographically, to Serbia? And could you be so kind as to give me a quick overview as to the roles the various combatants played in the Bosnian conflict? I have always found it much more confusing than the independence of Croatia and Slovenia.

Next, attending to a relatively multi-ethnic university in Western Europe, I have noticed that most of the students from the Balkans get along rather well, no doubt helped by the mutual intelligibility of their languages. However, after years of strife, I would expect them to be rather bitter with each other; especially with regards to the Serbs (the same way that seemingly reasonable Middle Eastern students tend to have unreasonably unpleasant views on Israel). Indeed, as I understood it, resentment towards the Serbian ruling class is so great, Montenegro and Kosovo have, in recent times, declared their independence from Serbia. No doubt that at my university, I have only interacted with intelligent, mature, and well-off students from the Balkans, who rightfully see ethnic tensions as silly. However, why were the leaders of these countries, which are so very similar, not able to to settle their differences, perhaps establishing a looser union?

Thank you in advance for answering. I'm sorry if my question betrays a crude understanding of the conflict, but it was always presented to me as a series of conflicts between combatants I never really wrapped my head around in terms of origin, motivation, and goals. Hopefully the replies can shed light for me on why the conflict happened, rather than how it happened.

Why are the Illyrians renowned for their piracy? I mean, why did they focus so much effort on piracy?

I'm an exchange student in Slovenia at the moment, and when I ask questions at my slovenian friends about Tito I always get different answers. Some say he was a great man, and that life was a lot better. And others tell me he was a dictator and life now is better. I don't know what to believe, was he a bad man? Were people indoctrinated by propaganda, leading to believe he was a great man? By international standards, was he a bad ruler? Did he suppress the people? Or was he a Great Dictator?

I've always heard that the fall of Belgrade to the Turks was the catalyst to opening the Balkans and Central Europe to Ottoman incursions. How much truth is there to that?

Followup question: How did the fall affect the Serbs relationship with the rest of the Balkans?

Who created raki/rakia?

How did Slovenian culture and language develop? There are only around 2 million or so living in the country today, seems like they should have been swamped over by now by some greater power, yet they've always been able to keep their own SLovenian-ness.

The Balkans used to be a powerhouse, what and when were the major event(s) that contributed to the region's destabilization and downfall pre-the wars of the last few decades?

I've been to Bosnia, and was happy & surprised at how multi-religious the place is (which seems to be a source of pride and symbol of tolerance now, though it wasn't always). How did the place become so mixed, given that most countries are/were predominantly one religion?

Regarding the Tito-Stalin or Yugoslavia-Soviet feud, how much of this was just personality conflict and nationalism and how much genuinely different ideology was there between Titoism and Soviet ideology? Did this change after deStalinization (i.e. Krushchev's "secret speech") in the Soviet Union?

What are a few things Bulgaria could have done to improve its position before the First Balkan War?

Why did the various nationalities of Yugoslavia have so much hate for each other during World war 2? We know Croatians and Serbians committed genocide or ethnic cleansing on each other during it. Was there anything like this before World War 2?

This one might be obscure and unanswerable, but I've read in some Croatian literature that a small band of Spanish mercenaries was present in Zagreb/Croatia during the conflicts with the Ottomans. Is there any historical evidence that supports this?

I would like to know more about the pre 1992 war religion distribution in Bosnia.

Why was and is there a large stretch of Orthodox believers along the Sava river all the way to the Croatian coast.

Was it because of the warline that was along that frontier in the Ottoman times or are there other reason for such a weird geographical extension of Orthodox believers.

In your opinion, was Yugoslavia destined to fracture after the death of Tito, or could it have continued had circumstances been different?

This probably isn't quite within anyone's particular expertise but I'll give it a shot.

In the 18th century, how common were semi-autonomous regions such as the Pashaliks of Shkodra and Yanina in the Ottoman Empire? How much resistance would have been involved in claiming the degree of autonomy that they had, and in practical terms, how autonomous were they really? What was the relationship like between the pashaliks and the central governing body, can could it be compared to a tribute state status?

I'm of Macedonian heritage living in Australia. I grew up hearing the horrific stories of tragedy of the Macedonian Jews during WWII from my parents and grandparents. But I've always been curious as to how the Jews were treated before the war in the region. How peaceful was their coexistence with the Orthodox and Muslim population? Especially how did the different ethnicities interact around the Pelister/Bitola area?

Are their any books and/or articles (in English or Macedonian) that would be worth reading?

Thanks.

About two years ago, there was a lot of talk about a Yugoslavian Space Program back in the 1960s, and how it was sold to the Americans so they could achieve the lunar landing. The theory sounds a bit out there, but doesn't seem impossible. Is there any historical evidence that would support this claim even remotely?

Source: http://youtu.be/EfJiNPZ38kY

What was in your opinion the main reason for the armed separation? I keep hearing different reasons, ranging from the discontent of other nations with the prevalence of Serbs in the state hierarchy and distribution of resources to Serbia; to Western powers not wanting a powerful socialist state so close in Europe or just an economic unsustainability of the socialist system?

Re: Kosovo. Kosovo originally belonged to Serbia (post-breakup of Yugoslavia) before splitting off. Are there any historical reasons for the split between Kosovo and Serbia, or is it just yet another consequence of the region being so culturally diverse in general? Any answer highly appreciated!

/u/fucho - what were the strongest, most enduring influences (cultural, folkways, etc) of Islam in the Balkans that persist in post-WW2 Yugoslavia? For example, are there enclaves of post-Ottoman influence that nowadays eschew pork but don't really know why? something akin to the marranos (Anusim or crypto-Jews) of Iberia and New Spain...

Nick

In the run up to WWII what led up to the croatians wanting to exterminate serbs? Were there historic tensions or disputed terditorial claims? Was it religous? Or was it just sone sort of ethnic superiority kick similar, perhaps directly related to what was going on in Germany?

Note I am not talking about the later serb atrocities against croats (last tine I asked there seened to be sone confusion about that.)

Thank you :)

How accepted is the theory that it was the Catholic persecution of Bogomilism that was the main cause behind the subsequent conversion of the Bosnians to Islam?

Mainly directed at /u/Fucho. I've heard a lot of contentious arguements regarding how "socialist" socialist Yugoslavia really was. How were the means of production and distribution managed in Yugoslavia and how did this affect peoples lives on an everyday basis?

How long has the Balkans been the sort of "backwater" corner of Europe? In other words, did it ever experience any periods of real prosperity or importance or has it been more or less how it is today? I'm obviously pretty ignorant of the region but I suppose that lends itself to my question.

Hi! Thank you so much for this AMA. Here are some questions I have in mind, I hope they make sense!

1.How different are the people in the Balkans ethnically? Did they all originate from the same point and then branch out? 2. if so, how did these people become so diverse? 3.Who "came first"? 4.Did the Ottoman Empire cause a lot of change in the area by introducing a new religion? Or was there already a sizable muslim population.

With the violence going on, to an outsider like me who has not much knowledge, the tensions seems to be both religious and nationalistic (I hope this is the right word).

/u/yodatsracist - were there Balkan Muslim leaders or groups that made their mark on a broader Islamic world? influence on wider theology, practice, ideas, etc. Within the temporal sphere you study, did Muslims of the Balkans impact Islamic movements like Wahabbism, Sufism, et al?

Any idea on what wars my M59/66A1 SKS would have maybe seen? It's pretty worn, so I think it's seen some action. Here it is.

So how did socialist Yugoslavia viewed the World War I and its legacy (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)?

I know this is a bit outside of your specific areas of expertise, but we all read widely: Do any of you have recommendations for reading on the early medieval Balkans? I'm especially interested in interregional connections (most obviously including trade, but I'm open to anything), 5th-11th centuries. I've seen some stuff on the Amber Trail, but I'm always looking for more.

How come "Garde De Fir" which was very much like NSDAP in Germany, did not survive as long in Romania?

One of the oddest things that comes from my study is the administration of the Duchy of Ragusa by Auguste Marmont. After the defeat of France, did Marmont leave a legacy of local improvements that the Ottoman Empire did not do?

/u/fucho what was Macedonia's regional role within Yugoslavia? Is there brief history of the region while apart of Yugoslavia? As a Macedonian-American I've always been interested but I find it difficult to find history on just this area particular

TLDR; What are the scientific basis on which the idea for a Macedonian ethnicity was brought to life and when did that happen?

The long version:

Here is how I look at the Bulgarian ethnic group vs Macedonian ethnic group:

According to me there is only one notable event from the ethnic formation point of view. Bulgarians migrated in massive numbers in 7th century and overwhelmed the existing population on the Balkan peninsula. Without knowing the exact numbers of the Bulgarians, there is a written evidence that their numbers were formidable - the Byzantine emperor had sent his entire battle force - land and sea, including his personal guards to stop the incoming invasion and was defeated in a very decisive manner. Wikipedia says "Unable to stop them by force, Constantine settled for a humiliating, but not disastrous treaty whereby "protection" money had to be paid to the Bulgar King"

At that point the Byzantine empire was not less than 7 million in population or maybe a lot more. (555 AD - 26 mil; 780 AD - 7 mil). Logically - if such a population can support an army of size X and was defeated, then the opposing army - and the population that supported it - have to be of somewhat similar size. Maybe even few times smaller, but not many times smaller.

So, the Bulgarians in these great numbers settled on a fraction of the Byzantine empire land. Therefore the ratio of Bulgarians to locals in those lands would be many to very little. The population that comes out of that mix 12 centuries later (there were no major migrations since 7th century) has to be called with the name of the group that was dominant when it was formed - Bulgarians. Any original ethnic groups were to be melted and lost. This is also very clear from the fact the the dark hair + brown eyes of the Bulgars (as dominant genes) took over completely the light hair + light eyes of the native Slavs.

I am not a professional historian but my logic seems solid. I am really curious how this logic can be scientifically rejected in order to form the idea of an Macedonian ethnic group that survived the Bulgarian migration in the 7th century under these circumstances. Where and when was this scientific evidence discovered?

And by scientific, I mean something objective (e.g. genetics) and not an opinion of a person(s) with academic title(s).

Not a question so I'm not sure if this is allowed..... I'm a direct decedent of general jovan popovitch lipovats and was looking for English sources concerning his life and also to find out his connection to njegosh.

Is Alexander the Great an important historical figure in Macedonian society nowadays, despite the ongoing protest from Greece?

Hope I'm not too late for this.

My questions are about how Serbs viewed Bulgarians prior to 1878. Did they consider them a distinct people or just a branch of the unliberated Serbs? Where there long-term plans in Belgrade to absorb Bulgarian-inhabited lands into Serbia? And if the Bulgarians were regarded as different from the Serbs, was there at least a notion that the ethnic boundary lay to the east of the political one - that is, that people we would now call western Bulgarians were actually eastern Serbs? (I know about the Serbo-Bulgarian War, the Western Outlands and the Chetniks' ambitions for Vidin.)

I just came here to ask something about the Balkans, so this is perfect:

• How is Bosnia and Herzegovina a single country? After everything that happened in the 90s, shouldn't the Federation be one independent country, and the Republika Srpska be separated from them, either as another independent country or as a part of the Republic of Serbia?

Also:

• When Tito was alive, did Serbs, Croats and Bosnians actually get along (or at least respect and tollerate each others), or is it just pure nostalgia?

A bit late to the party, but here it goes. None of you seem to be specialized in what i am looking for, but maybe /u/fucho and /u/unotamacropus might be able to help.

I am Croatian, and have been wondering for some time now what kind of relationship Croatia had with Serbia (or rather the Serbian entity present under Ottoman rule)before the middle of the 19th century and the Illyric movement that strove to bring all the southern Slavs together.

Nowhere in our history books (at least not on the hs level) is there any mention of any kind of (in)formal relations between Austro-Hungaria and the Serbian people in any form. Ever since the Ottomans conquered Bosnia, it all boils down to them chipping away at Croatian territory before finally being driven back once the empire's power started to wain.

Also, there is no mention, non that I can recall at least, of Serbian - Croatian relations before the ottomans, i.e. in the middle ages etc. The focus is always on the union between Croatia and Hungary and their later integration into the Habsburgs' empire.

Do we know the origin of the terrace cultivation on the islands (Korcula, Hvar...)? They are everywhere where i live and i'm not sure of their origin, you can even find them in totally wild forests, and they always amazed me for the amazing amount of work they must have taken to be build. I have heard it come as far as the age of bronze, can you describe a bit this period if this hold any truth? Did the Greek/roman cultivated wheat on those terraces before wine and now olive trees?

Do you think that Gradaščević could have freed Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Ottomans if he hadn't been betrayed?

In the 19th and 20th century, almost all Kings of Greece came from the house of Glücksburg (with the exception of Otto I who was from the Wittelsbach royal family).

How did the Glücksburg royal family come to rule Greece?

This is extremely late, but in case anyone is still paying attention, I would like to know what scholars of the Balkans feel when they talk about the Ottoman Empire. Throwing aside the pretense of objectivity, what is your reaction to the Ottomans?

jao bato, ko nas bre zavadi. sad bi bili švajcarska, ali sve će bit bolje kad sad kad na srbi rastumače malo istorije.