History of the Balkans (Barbara Jelavich)

Part I & II: Balkan Christians under Ottoman rule

This chapter will talk about the role of the great powers in Balkan developments as well as the role of
Christianity and Islam in the political organization of the state.

1. THE OTTOMAN SYSTEM

The Ottoman government

At the time of Suleiman The Magnificent (15th-16th centuries) the empire was governed by a system
that contrasted strongly with contemporary European regimes.

Ottoman state was built upon the Holy war (extension and defence of Islam) and it was the duty of
the ruler (top of the pyramid - absolute divine-right ruler) and it was done under constraint for those
who opposed resistance. This holy war was the main function of the empire -> why the military
forces were of major importance.

First great division = along religious lines.

Second great division = social and function division -> Ottoman society was organised into a tight
pattern of estates. Movement between levels was difficult.

Main duties of the Sultan = maintenance of religious and civil law (foundations of Ottoman system).

Key terms :

Sheriat (religious law of Islam);

Koran (the basic source, record of the word of god) ;

Kanuns (laws) ;

Firman (imperial decrees) ;

Kul (slave system) ;

Devshirme (meaning “to collect” with reference to slaves, collecting slaves. Slaves were used for
administrative positions); Janissary (most effective fighting force in this period);

Sipahis (the cavalry based on the countryside),

Ziamet/Timar (name for a large land/name for a normal size land granted to some people);

Kadi (judge -> provided by the members of the ulema);

Muftis (interpreters of both the Sheriat and sultan’s decrees, they were consulted for the
interpretation);

Fetva (issued by the Seyhulislam, opinion or interpretation, important hold on public opinion but not
enforceable as such);

Reaya (merchants and craftmen, assigned to remain at their position)

First deputy of the government was the grand vezir, assisted by Imperial Council (known as Divan).
The Sipahi usually lived in the village where his lands were located, or nearby, so he was tied to his
area where he had important duties (tax collector, protection, maintenance of order…)

In addition to the officials and the military, the ruling class included the members of the Ulema. (law,
education, supervision of the Muslim community’s moral and religious life).

The judges (kadi) had jurisdiction over all Muslims and over Christians, except in those sectors
reserved for the Christian church authorities. The roles of the Mufti (and especially the Syhuislam)
were also important to interpret Islam.

The social status was fixed in the Ottoman system -> society as divided into separate estates, each
part serving a particular function in a divine order (not disturbing the balance ordained by god).

 No idea of progress under this system.

However, one should not that when the Ottoman theocratic system was at its heights, Europe was
entering upon the age of the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, and the religious wars. In
comparison with the excesses of both Catholic and Protestant, the Muslim Ottoman state showed
itself remarkably tolerant. Actually, throughout the long years of Ottoman domination, the Christian
(who were not forced to convert themselves to Islam) and Muslim societies lived side by side in
relative peace.

The breakdown of the system

The Ottoman system never reached its “ideal state”.

Why?

Major problem was the “quality” of the Sultans: there was a lack of a satisfactory regulation of the
succession. The successful candidate owed his victory to luck, superior military power and court
intrigue. Rivalry and execution between rivals also occurred.

The princes (eligible) also lacked the right education.

 With the accession of Sultans who were not fit to rule, the power in the state passed to those
closest to the throne: the royal household and the ministers.

A little interlude was made possible by the Köprülü family which provided four extremely able grand
vezirs, but it was rather an exception.

The slave and devshirme organization had ended later on. The government and military offices were
no long staffed by dedicated converts but by Muslims and Christians (who “bought” their seat).

The collapse at the top was thus reflected right down to the bottom of the centralized bureaucracy.

Another cause of the decline of the stat was its increasing impoverishment (inflation, sharp rise in
prices, rising costs…) which led to increase the rate of taxation.

Another detail of the financial crisis were the necessity to use the Janissaries (a salary had to be paid
for them) instead of the Sipahi cavalry -> with the failure of the empire to acquire new territory by
conquest and with the withdrawal of areas from the timar system, the number of sipahis equipped
for battle naturally declined.
The growing important of Janissaries played a role in worsening the situation (were sent to provinces
and made the conditions for local people worst, they also became an important political force with
the ability to depose vezirs and even sultan, they also became important element in the guild system)
-> by the 18th became not easily disciplined subject and were financially independent.

2. THE BALKAN CHRISTIANS

To understand the Ottoman system was dealing with Christian concerns, we can take a look at the
millet system.

The Millet System refers to the Ottoman administration of separate religious communities that
acknowledged each community's authority in overseeing its own communal affairs, primarily through
independent religious court systems and schools.

(https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/faq/millet-system#:~:text=The%20Millet%20System%20refers
%20to,religious%20court%20systems%20and%20schools.)

Key terms :

Millet bashi (head of the millet)

Ethnarch (secular ruler)

Dragoman: agent or an intermediary (see below with the importance of the Greeks). (grand
dragoman, dragoman of the navy and governship of Wallachia and Moldavia)

The Orthodox millet

For the Orthodox, the most significant step was taken in 1454, following the fall of Constantinople.

Mehmed the Conqueror appointed George Scholarios as head of the Orthodox church. The patriarch
was the highest state official after the emperor and had heavy duties and responsibilities.

With the removal of the emperor and this officials after the conquest, a major portion of their former
duties fell under the jurisdiction of the church.

Although, the 4 eastern patriarchs were equal, in practice the Constantinople Patriarchate spoke for
the orthodox and gained a superior position.

After the abolition of autocephalous churches in Ohrid and Péc, the Patriarchate had jurisdiction over
the entire Balkan peninsula -> became the major center for the Balkan orthodox people.

The patriarch was responsible to his ruler for the behavior of his flock. The judicial functions were
significant for the Christian population (jurisdiction over a wide range of affairs using canon law,
Byzantine statutory law, local customs, church writings and traditions).

 In integrating Orthodox institutions into their system, the Ottoman government had the
advantage of being able to incorporate a complete administrative network.

The orthodox church despite its close connections with the Ottoman government and the corruption,
kept the Christina community almost unchanged in a ideological sense until the age of the national
movements and raised the sense of “moral superiority” of the Christians over their conquerors.
During this period, Catholicism was the main enemy as such that Ottoman rule was preferable to that
of a Catholic power (despite the French Catholic being an ally of the Ottomans, it didn’t help Catholic
penetration in the Balkans).

In contrast, with the emergence of Russia as Orthodox great power, the patriarch often sought
assistance from this state.

Greek influence: the Phanariots

During the Ottoman reign, certain Greeks won a privileged status (those who won wealth and
power).

It can be explained by the migration to the Two Sicilies and Venice by the Greeks after the Ottoman
conquest. They enjoyed the expansion of Europe trade. They were also not usual peasant population
and had a great concern for education.

The really privileged position were held by the Phanariot oligarchy.

N.B. Phanariote = member of one of the principal Greek families of the Phanar, the Greek quarter of
Constantinople (Istanbul), who, as administrators in the civil bureaucracy, exercised great influence in
the Ottoman Empire in the 17th and 18th century.

The Greeks played also a major role in diplomacy and negotiation with the other powers because of
their good education -> Dragoman

It is an important shift because before the 17 th century, high position in the bureaucracy went almost
exclusively to converts (here the Greeks kept their ties with the Patriarch).

There was a major shift also in the 18 th from a universalist to a Greek national emphasis: the
Constantinople office represented Orthodox in general and not only Greeks. It led to the abolition of
the organizations of Péc and Ohrid which served Slavic peoples.

A Greek hierarchy also was in control in Moldavia and Wallachie. Only the Montenegrin Church
remained independent.

Throughout the years, we have experienced national movements who were in conflict with the
highest religious authority.

Provincial government: village communities

Key terms :

Miri: state land

Mülk: private property

Vakif: belonged to religious foundations

Harac: head tax but not levied on Muslims

Just before, we put the focus on the upper level of Ottoman administration. Here, we will take a look
at the highly developed network of provincial governments.
The Balkan peninsula - seen as a single administrative unit -, was divided into sections that were
called at various times eyalets, vilayets, or pashaliks.

These in turn has subordinate jurisdictions known as Sanjaks or livas, which were further subdivided
into kazas, then into nahiyes.

The area was also organized into judicial districts called kadiliks. Defterdars (treasury officials) had a
separate administrative system.

The local authorities worked with the resident sipahis. Janissaries and provincial administration had
police duties.

The chief official at the local level, usually titled pasha, relied for advice on a council, a divan, in
which Christina notables and guild officials might also sit.

The villages were usually run by officials known by various titles. Most communities were controlled
by the leading notables. Their importance rose as the central government declined.

Most villages also formed a part of a larger organization, representatives from local communities met
a central location to discuss common problems.

At the bottom of the social scale were the peasants who suffered in various way (taxes, disease…)

The vakif land became of great significance. It was indeed possible for an individual to assure
personal salvation by giving property or money to a Muslin charitable foundation with the intention
of having the income used for a pious purpose -> since the Ottoman state did not provide social
services, these institutions supported hospitals, orphanages…

For the Christian peasantry, the bandits (bands of armed outlaw) came to enjoy a high reputation as
they were seen a symbol of resistance to political and social repression.

We should also talk about the Muslims who were to be found in the towns as government officials,
military men, or members of guilds. In the countryside, Muslin has advantages as they were part of
the ruling establishment (which was not the case for the other peasants non-Muslims).

However, for both (even if Muslims got some exemptions), tax collection was a major issue. As
Ottoman government became weaker, resistance to tax payments grew.

The city

The major cities of the Balkan were the administrative, military and judicial centers for the Ottoman
government. The cities were divided into quarters (Mahallas), each inhabited by a separate group of
the population. The composition contrasted a lot with that of the countryside.
 3. THE WARS OF THE EIGHTEEN CENTURY

During this period, the military weakness of the empire was demonstrated by repeated defeats.
Balkan cities and villages were destroyed. War taxes and army requisitions further impoverished the
countryside.

Although Ottoman military power in fact commenced to decline after the reign of Suleiman the
Magnificent, the rivalries among the European great powers made it impossible for them to organize
a new crusade of Christian states.

Some key dates:

1683: attempts to capture Vienna but after 2 months of siege, defeated.

Following this defeat, Holy League was established (Austria, Papacy, Venice, Poland + Russia later).

1686 : Buda (capital of Ottoman Hungary) fell in 1686

1688: Belgrade was taken

1699: Treaty of Karlowitz (Sremski Karlovci) (one of the major peace treaties of modern European
history)  in this agreement, for the first time, the Ottoman ceded territory permanently to Christian
powers. It also included commercial and religious clause in favour of the Habsburg empire. Russia
made a separate peace treaty.

1709: Peter the Great (former emperor of Russia) embarked upon an ambitious Balkan campaign and
called upon the Balkan Christians to rise in aid of his army. But the success was not there.

1716: Another sweep by the Habsburgs in the Balkan region -> Treaty of Passarowitz signed in 1718
gave to the Habsburgs the Bant of Temesvar, northern Serbia (with Belgrade) and Oltenia.

1739: Treaty of Belgrade -> Ottoman Empire regained northern Serbia and Oltenia following new
conflicts with the Russians and Habsburgs forces.

1768: Ottoman Empire declared War on Russia -> these Russian victories frightened the other
European powers.

1774: the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarhi was the equivalent for Russia of the Treaty of Karlowitz for
Austria -> it was a major military and diplomatic disaster for the Ottoman Empire since it marked a
complete change in the power balance in the Black Sea region.

1775: Area of Bukovina was ceded by the Ottoman to Austria

“Greek project”: project by Catherine the great who south to break up the empire and the
restoration of a revived Byzantine Empire, which Constantinople under Russian protection.

Starting from 1780, the partition of the Ottoman Empire was discussed by the great powers.

1783: Crimea was annexed by Russia -> followed by a major effort to colonize and develop the newly
acquired areas. These developments deeply affected the military balance not only in the Black Sea
area, but also in the Balkan peninsula.

1787: new war against Russia where the great Russian general (Suvorov) won impressive victories.
By the last decade of the 18 th century, it was clear that Russia was the predominant European power
in the Near eat and the principal threat to Ottoman survival. In parallel, the main ally of the Ottoman
empire (France) never really helped the Empire to resist (never send army forces there) and was
more preoccupied by the conflicts with Great Britain.

1792: Treaty of Jassy was a pact between the Russian and Ottoman Empires ending the Russo-Turkish
War of 1787–92 and confirming Russia's increasing dominance in the Black Sea.

4. BALKAN PEOPLE UNDER OTTOMAN RULE

Here we talk about lands inhabited by the Christian people under direct Ottoman rule: the Greeks,
Albanians, Montenegrins, Serbs, and Bulgarians.

The Greeks

By the 18th century, the most favourable position among the Christians was held by the Greeks (see
above, we talked about it).

The concentration of the Greek population was to be found in the islands of the Aegean
(Peloponnesus).

Since the Ottoman government did not attempt to control closely areas remote from the major cities
and lines of communication, the villages of herdsmen and small farmers in the mountains of
continental Greece usually were allowed to run their own affairs as long as they paid their taxes.

Overall, we would see a vigorous system of local self-government -> since the Ottoman government
preferred to deal with organized Christian groups and not directly with individuals, these local
systems had been supported and encouraged. A network of communal government thus paralleled
the Ottoman administrative framework.

Local notables as we mentioned earlier were in charge of the villages and the elders of each village
formed a council to decide local issues. Two members of this group + two Muslims formed the
permanent council of the vezir of the Peloponnesus. As also discussed, the communal system had
important judicial and political functions.

Secured in their privileges, those local elites did not challenge Ottoman rule.

The Ottoman government organized the remote districts into Armatoliks or Kapitanates -> Armatole
bands were given jurisdiction over a definite assembly of villages and the responsibility for
maintaining law and order and for collecting taxes.

Those Armatoliks were supposed to be there to counterbalance the Klephts (An anti-Ottoman
insurgent living in the mountains when Greece was a part of the Ottoman Empire.)

Following the Holy League formation, Ottoman forces were drawn into the northern Balkans to
defend their Empire. Meanwhile, venetian forces used the opportunity to launch an expedition in the
Peloponnesus. The newly acquisition was confirmed in the Treaty of Karlowitz but didn’t last long.

In 1714, Turkish troops appeared again and met little resistance as local population preferred a
reestablishment of the former regime -> treaty of Passarowitz, the area was returned to Ottoman
empire.

Beginning of 1760, Russian interest in the Orthodox church and in general Greek affairs came into
play. However, the aspirations were not fully met due to the lack of military assistance by Russia.
The Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji stated that Christian religion shall not be exposed to the least
oppression. Interest in Greece continued to mount in Russia after the war.

In the previous peace treaties and in the associated commercial agreements, Russia had gained
important rights within the empire. The Russian ties with the Constantinople Patriarchate continued.

The Albanians

Although the Albanians shared with the Greeks many of the problems of a people endowed with a
rocky, mountainous land, they marked a strong contrast in other respects.

The Albanians remained among the most backward people in the Balkans (<> Greeks Phanariot
class).

They had the largest conversion to Islam. Some historians explained this as a result of the sharp rise
in taxes Djizia (paid by the Christian and not by the Muslims).

Most of the forces conversions also happened in the 17 th century -> many of them were resettled in
the Kosovo area.

In the 18th century: complex religious picture. Catholics, weakest group, were concentrated in the
North with Shkodër. Orthodox principally sout of the Shkumbi. Muslims lived throughout the
country.

Catholics sought support to the Habsburgs Empire. Orthodox were part of the Ohrid Archbishopric
until its abolition, while the Albanians Muslims enjoyed a privileged position. They had many
opportunities to serve the state.

In addition to the three-way division in religion, the Albanians formed two other groups: the Ghegs
and the Tosks.

Ghegs = developed a self-governing tribal organisation similar to that of the neighbouring

Montenegrins. (P.25 of the PDF)

Tosks = no tribal system, lived in villages under their own elected notables. (P.25 of the PDF)

Although Albania was not a theatre of war in the 18 th century, it was not peaceful. The Albanians
lands contributed many soldiers to the Ottoman campaigns and losses were high + struggles for
power among local Muslim notables.

We also found Beys = owners of large estates who sought for political power and were out of control
of Constantinople.

- As a result of these circumstances, by the end of the 18 th century, two centers of power had
emerged: Bushati family in the north and South with Ali Pasha. (P.26 of the PDF)

The Montenegrins

After its conquest in 1499, the Ottoman government made little effort to control the remote
mountain land of Montenegro.
Montenegrins as Armatoles in Greece were also expected to perform a military function.

Montenegro, together with the adjacent Albanian highlands, was probably the most primitive area in
the Balkans, if not in Europe.

The single element of unity was at first the church. Montenegro was both Serb in nationality and
Orthodox in religion.

In the war of Holy Lague, some tribes fought for Venice, an action that led to an occupation by a
Turkish force. Venice and Montenegro maintained strong ties. But after 1718, the link with Venice
weakened as Montenegro received no gains in the Treaty of Passarowitz.

From this period, Russian became the main focus of Montenegrin attention.

Meanwhile, throughout the history, relations with the Porte remained tense (for instance, after an
Ottoman force invaded their land, the Montenegrins gave assurances that they would pay taxes and
that the raids would cease.)

N.B. Porte = Sublime Porte, also called Porte, the government of the Ottoman Empire. The name is a
French translation of Turkish Bâbıâli (“High Gate,” or “Gate of the Eminent”). ... There, too, were the
offices of the foreign ministry and the council of state; hence the application of the term to the
government as a whole.

In 1766, a “false” Peter III (died 4 years sooner), managed to lure people and became the new ruler.
He established some measures and tried to establish something like a formal civil government. But
this lure deteriorated relations with Russia.

Montenegro made approaches to the Habsburg Empire in 1777.

For the rest of the century, the main threat to Montenegro came from neighbouring Albania. The
first attack on Montenegrin territory took place in 1785. Lead by Kara Mahmud, his victories and his
attitude of resistance toward the Porte attracted the attention of both Austria and Russia (who had
project about partition of Empire Ottoman at that time).

Although warfare in the region should have ceased when Austria made peace in 1791, the fighting
continued in Montenegro.

One battle (battle of Krusi) is extremely significant to Montenegro. Indeed, Kara Mahmud tried to
attack Montenegro but was defeated. Montenegro was even able to annex the neighbouring region.

Bosnia and Hercegovina

As in Albania, large-scale conversions occurred after the Ottoman occupation. It was also a land for
refugees coming from various countries around (Muslim refugees).

Political situation was extremely favourable for the Muslims in Bosnia, even though they were only
33% of the population, while orthodox 43%, and Catholics 20%.

In the 18th century, sipahis held 144 large estates (Ziamets) and 3,617 timars -> they formed an
important element in the Ottoman armed forces (for instance: Battle of the Pruth).

Among the ruling military, there was also an important additional group, the captains, who had
functions similar to those of their Christian equivalent in Greece.
The old Slavic nobility holding large estates, together with the high government and miliary officials,
formed the dominant class -> group known as Begs or Beys.

Below, lower nobility = Agas.

 Two types of estates developed. On the agaliks, the peasants retained their traditional rights
concerning the use of the land and the payments requires. In contrast, on the begliks, the
land was regarded as the property of the noble.

Due to the diversity of religions, they experienced difficulties when these people were in conflict with
the Porte.

In 1703, the capital was moved from Sarajevo to Travnik, which became a major craft and trading
center as well as a military stronghold.

Bosnia, as a border province, was the scene of much fighting. The wars of 1714 o 1718 and 1736 to
1739 were extremely damaging to Bosnian development (lost territories with different treaties, the
plague, agricultural lands disrupted by invasions..).

The struggle for power among the Muslim military involved in particular the captains and the
janissaries.

From 1747 to 1756, Bosnia was in a condition of anarchy involving both the cities and the
countryside.

Meanwhile the Habsburg Empire retained its interest in Bosnia. In the discussion regarding the
partition of Ottoman Empire, Bosnia was designated as part of Austria.

One major event is known as the Dubica War (ended by the Treaty of Sistova):

(Wikipedia source)

The Battle of Dubica (Croatian: Bitka kod Dubice) was fought on 16 August 1513 between the
Kingdom of Croatia and the Ottoman Empire. The Croatian army was commanded by Petar Berislavić,
Ban of Croatia, while the Ottoman army was mostly composed of forces from the Sanjak of Bosnia
under command of Sanjak-bey Junuz-aga. The two armies clashed near the town of Dubica in central
Croatia, between the Sava and Una rivers. The battle resulted in a Croatian victory and heavy losses
for the Ottoman side.

The Serbs

Although the Serbs lived in wide areas in the western Balkans, the national movement was to have its
center in the Smederevo Sanjak, to become the pashalik of Belgrade.

N.B. Eyalets also known as beylerbeyliks or pashaliks, were a primary administrative division of the
Ottoman Empire

This area was also a border district like Bosnia but no notable Muslim population outsides the cities.

Like other Balkan people, the Serbian peasant had the advantages of a tight local administrative
system. The basic unit was the Knezina (district). They were composed of villages, which in turn were
made up of Zadrugas (extended family organizations).
Each Knezina had a council of notables that elected the knez -> As elsewhere, this official
represented his district before the Ottoman authorities and was responsible for the assessing and
collecting of taxes as well as general police duties.

Also, the local government provided judicial services, using customary law as the basis.

The orthodox church played an important role in Serbian history. At the beginning of the 18 th
century, the Serbian lands were still under the Patriarchate of Péc.

(Wikipedia)

The Serbian Patriarchate of Peć (Serbian: Српска патријаршија у Пећи, Srpska patrijaršija u Peći) or
just Patriarchate of Peć (Serbian: Пећка патријаршија, Pećka patrijaršija), was an autocephalous
Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate that existed from 1346 to 1766 with its seat in the Patriarchal
Monastery of Peć. It had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Eastern Orthodox Christians in Serbian Lands
and other western regions of Southeastern Europe. Primates of the Patriarchate were styled
Archbishop of Peć and Serbian Patriarch.

 The lands under its ecclesiastical jurisdiction were referred to as “Serbian lands” despite their
varying religious and ethnic character. The church carried the national idea and kept alive in
the minds of the faithful the independent and glorious past.

Serbian Patriarchate of Peć collapsed in 1766, when it was abolished by the Turkish Sultan Mustafa III
(1757-1774). The jurisdiction was transferred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The Serbian church also considered the Catholic church as the most serious rival.

Despite the religious differences, geography dictated cooperation with Habsburg empire. The Serbs
fought with the Austrian troops and together attempted to rise against the Ottoman Domination.
Successfully at first, a bit less successfully later.

However, there was a rapprochement with the Habsburg. In 1690, Leopold I issued a proclamation in
which he called on the Balkan people to rise and support his armies. He promised in return religious
liberty, lower taxes and free election of the Serbian leaders -> a large number of familied crossed the
border to settle in Habsburg lands.

The great emigration had unfortunate consequences for the Péc Patriarchate, and it contributed to
the alteration of the ethnic composition of the Kosovo area -> with the departure of the Serbs and
the larg-scale immigration of Albanians, the region acquired an Albanian majority.

Following the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718), Habsburg reinforced its control over the region. The
Serbian section was divided into fifteen districts in which the upper level of administration was in the
hands of Habsburg officiels, but the lower consisted of a strengthened Serbian local government
network. Duties of local authorities as under Ottoman rule were about collection of taxes, local police
functions and judicial duties. German craftsmen were brought to replace the Turkish.

In 1737, new conflicts arose and led the lost of Serbian and Romanian territory by the Habsburg.

After the conclusion of the peace in 1739, the Turkish administration, together, with the sipahis and
janissaries, returned to the region, while the Austrian administrative system still used.

A period of peace followed. But in 1788, when Austria joined Russia in a new conflict, situation
changed. It led to the episode known as the Koca war (P.2 PDF, Jelavich, part 2).
This war was a disaster not only for the Serbian volunteers, but for also for the Habsburg Empire who
last Belgrade only a year after its conquest.

 A century of experience of cooperation with Austria had discouraged the Serbian leaders in
their hopes of Habsburg assistance.

Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Thrace

Key-terms

Kirdjalis: armed band

By contrast with regions discussed before, Bulgaria, Thrace and Macedonia because of their
geographical position remained under a tighter control by the Muslim authorities.

They also had the pattern of local administration (as discussed previously with other regions).

Slight difference: the Chiftlik estates arose in those advantages locations.

Reminder: Chiflik, or chiftlik, is a Turkish term for a system of land management in the Ottoman
Empire. Before the chiflik system the Empire used a non-hereditary form of land management called
the Timar System.

Unlike most of the rest of the Balkans, this area had a large Muslim and Turkish presence (led to
some advantaged like paying smaller taxer for the Muslim farmers).

For the Christians, as in other areas, the Orthodox church was the major element of unity. Bulgarian
people were under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid (which had the same fate as the
from the Péc!)

The lost for Bulgarians of the Slavic Archbishopric gave rise to period of Greek cultural domination
(language, education, culture…)

This region was not heavily reached by the wars but got some serious issues (disease, general
impoverishment…). However, they did witness an increase in trade, in particular with the Habsburg
Empire (helped by the Treaty of Karlowitz which gave to Austria trading privileges.)

We also experienced in the region the same “dual governorship” -> Ottoman administrative
framework and the village organizations.

Orthodox church also played an important role (moral and spiritual). Here, some church authorities
acted as support of the system.

COMMON FEATURES (SUMMARY OF THOSE REGIONS)

Privileges for Muslim (less tax, access to certain positions…)

Fiscal pressure (and overall difficulties in collecting properly the taxes)

Regional autonomy (local police, local administration of justice)

A “dual” governorship (Ottoman administrative framework and the village organizations)

The importance of Orthodox church

The Ottoman governance through intermediaries (either the Church or the elected chiefs of the
villages)

5. THE AUTONOMOUS REGIONS: DUBROVNIK MOLDAVIA, AND WALLACHIA

The lands whose histories have just been discussed were regarded as integral parts of the empire.
Four other Balkan areas, Transylvania, Moldavia, Wallachia, and the city of Dubrovnik, were linked by
special arrangements.

Dubrovnik

It was place under Ottoman protection in 1458. It was due to pay a tribute to the Ottoman Empire,
but aside from this, it was independent (made treaties with foreign powers, had its own flag…)

Due to its position (“Adriatic trade”), all privileges and focus were mainly about that.

The city was even allowed to set up, in major Ottoman cities, colonies that had extraterritorial rights.

Dubrovnik retained its autonomous position until 1806, when French troops occupied the city.

Moldavia and Wallachia

When they fell under the control of the Ottoman Empire, they were not incorporated as such into
the imperial system -> became autonomous provinces with their own institutions (Ottomans used
them as a buffer provinces).

Treaties set up the relations with the Ottoman Empire. They were used as defence and contributed
money (including gifts to Sultan) and agricultural supplies, but also military.

The council of boyars, which consisted of the richest and most powerful of the native aristocracy,
named from among their number the princes, sometimes called hospodars, who then had to be
appointed by the sultan. The prince ruled alongside with the boyars’ council, while the Porte also
intervened -> the political system did not function smoothly.

Regarding religion: Muslims did not own estates in either principality, not were there mosques and
other Muslim religious establishments.

As Ottoman power waned, the temptation to act with Russian leaders (as in the 18 th century, Russian
was the great Orthodox power) grew.

This rapprochement led to the conclusion of the Treaty of Luck (Lutsk?) in 1711.

(Wikipedia)

The  Treaty of the Lutsk  was a secret agreement signed in  Lutsk,  Poland-Lithuania  (now
in  Ukraine), between the  Tsardom of Russia  and the Ottoman  Protectorate of Moldavia  on
13 April 1711, shortly after the outbreak of the  Russo-Ottoman War of 1710–11.

It was agreed that Moldovia would become an independent state under the protection of the tsar.

However, the Russian campaign was a disaster, the Russian army was defeated in 1711.

This defeat led to political consequences.

Ottomans indeed sought to appoint reliable prince and their attention focused on the Phanariot
Greeks -> this appointment is regarded as the worst period in modern Romanian history (because of
corruption and uncontrolled fiscal exactions). The new rulers were not representatives of the
Principalities, but agents of the Ottoman government (and the boyars’ council power decreased).

Despite this loss of political power, the native boyar still maintained his privileged position in relation
to the rest of the population.

The new rules brought neither order no prosperity, but instead increasing turnoil and internal
anarchy.

The Phanariot system was attacked not only for its fiscal and political corruption, but for its style and
its Greek coloration.

Because of this regime, Romanian boyars sought assistance in both Russia and Austria -> their goal
was separation from the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of an independent or autonomous
regime, under the protection of one or both of these states.

Following the treaty of Passarowitz (when Austria annexed Oltenia), such a regime was inaugurated.
At first, the Austrian monarchy relied on the Boyars while making some reforms. However, in 1726,
any vestige of real autonomy was ended.

In 1736-37, Russia and Austria fought again against the Ottoman Empire, while capturing some other
regions (Iasi), the local boyars wanted also to be liberated from the Ottomans and the Phanariot.

However, following the lack of decision military gains, the treaty of Belgrade had to be signed in
1739, which reunited Oltenia with Wallachia.

A period of almost 30 years of peace followed. However, both principalities were in a chaotic state.

A series of reforms were introduced by the Phanariot prince: fiscal, social, and administrative
systems.

Mavrocordat’s (the Phanariot prince) objective was similar to the aims of the Habsburg government:
he wished to centralize the administration and bring it into direct contact with the mass of the
population.

First reform came in 1740 in Wallachia and dealt with a major issue: collection of taxes. The reform
pushed for the registration of the population of the State could assess taxes. However, some
categories used to have immunity for paying taxes and didn’t like the reform.

A new statute of nobility was issued, so the Boyars in both principalities were divided in two
categories: great boyars (free from all taxations) and small boyars (only a personal tax but largely
exempt of other contributions).

Attempts were also made to improve judicial system but it again interfered with previous rights of
the boyars and the church. A code of law was issued in 1780.

There were reforms regarding lands, peasants and their rights over lands. The reforms places in the
same category the former serf and the free peasant who had worked land belonging to a boyar on an
agreed basis. Were possible, the boyars sought always to return to the former system and to
increase peasant payment.
In 1768, the long period of peace came to an end with the Ottoman declaration of war on Russia. The
great Russian victories and the subsequent treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji were extremely significant for
the Romanian lands.

Russia’s interest was first and foremost military, and strategic (provinces were on the road to
Constantinople). Russia had many interests for this region. However, In 1774, all the great powers
were opposed to a peace that would radically alter the balance of power in southeastern Europe.

Throughout the century, native boyars continued to appeal to both Austria and Russia against the
Ottoman and Phanariot rule. But Russian government were also in good terms with the Phanariot
(because Orthodox, conservative, and holding influential offices there.)

The treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji contained important provisions concerning the Principalities and
Russa’s relations with them (tax relief, specific privileges…)

Russia’s position became even stronger with the appointment of consuls.

It was also the period when Catherine the Great and Joseph II were corresponding on their extensive
proposals for the partition of the Ottoman Empire.

1775: Austria had compelled the Porte to recognize its annexation of Bukovina, which was an integral
part of Moldavia.

In September 1787, Russian was again at war with the Porte (4 th times in the century!). The principal
Russian objective this time was the annexation of the lands between the Bug and Dniester rivers.

Russian won significant victories but due to the context (no access to the Baltic sea, withdraw from
the war by Austria in 1791) -> Treaty of Jassy was signed in 1792. Russia gained the lands to the
Dniester and became the immediate neighbour of Moldavia.

The principalities has begun to advance along the road of internal reform and national autonomy
despite the Phanariot regime remaining in place.

6. THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE: POLITICAL EVOLUTION IN THE 18th century

Reform and revolution

The situation in the 18th was chaotic: local anarchy, central government which proved to be
ineffective -> the local population tuned increasingly to its own leaders and its military bands, both
Christian and Muslim, which offered a better source of protection and guidance.

In parallel, the existence of strong provincial authorities naturally deprived the central government of
much of its income which led to a circle of difficulties.

There was a need for reforms, but it was difficult to many to believe that there was anything
fundamentally wrong with the basic principles on which their government rested.

To be acceptable, reform had to be based on the conception that the new measures were in fact a
return to an older and purer society.

On key area for reform: military sector. It was a question of life or death for the Empire. The financial
issues were another key sector. Both being linked.
In the 18th century, military reform was done but few attempts were made to improve the tax and
administrative structure.

The major military problem was the janissary corps (disbanded in 1826) which became a source of
political disorder and intrigue.

As a matter of example, it was a janissary rebellion in 1703 that led to the accession to power of
Ahmed III (reigned until 1730). Ahmed’s reign covered the Tulip Period in Ottoman culture (adoption
of Western, in particular French, styles).

Th era was characterized by an emphasis on pleasure and a great interest in poetry.

However, the extravagant spending of the Tulip Period produced an inevitable reaction. It had a cost
and didn’t help the impoverished countryside. A period of inflation, famine, plague, and rural unrest
was inevitable.

A mass influx of the rural population then moved to Constantinople and major cities of the Empire
and many rebellion (key character: Patrona Halil, leader of the lower-class forces) broke out (1730).

However, Patrona was murdered, and the government was re-established on much the old basis.

During the reign of Mahmud I (1730-1754), some effort at military reform was made. Under the
scope of the French men Claude Alexander freshly converted to Islam and since sipahi and janissary
opposition made changes in these organizations impossible, he concentrated on the bombardier
corps. He established a training center (closed by janissaries after his death).

When in 1774, Abdul Hamid I came to the throne, Russia was the most formidable adversary. The
absolute necessity of military reform was clearly demonstrated. France (who sent some experts), the
Ottoman ally, was also looking for military reforms.

The great reformer of the century was the next sultan, Selim III (1789-1807). The final loss of the
Crimea in 1783, with its 2 millions Muslim population, was a bitter blow to Muslim pride.

After 1792, Selim dealt with administrative reform but only used traditional means in a way that he
simply aimed to improve the existing structure and to eliminate the most flagrant abuses.

Military-wise, Selim, as he couldn’t get rid of the old corps, created a new unit -> Nizam-I Cedid (new
model), independent from the regular military forces and trained by European methods.

Selim’s reign covered the period of the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon.

The wars of Napoleon

Of the Ottoman territories, Egypt, Syria, the Dalmatian coast, and the Danubian Principalities were
primarily affected by the fighting.

Since the Ottoman Empire was part of the Eastern Barrier system for their French ally, French
government has every interest in preserving and defending Ottoman territorial integrity. However,
for a short period, France, adopted the unaccustomed role of providing the chief threat to Ottoman
domains, which Napoleon undertaking an aggressive campaign in the Mediterranean.

Treaty of Campo Formio:

(Wikipedia)
The Treaty of Campo Formio was signed on 17 October 1797 by Napoleon Bonaparte and Count
Philipp von Cobenzl as representatives of the French Republic and the Austrian monarchy,
respectively. The treaty followed the armistice of Leoben, which had been forced on the Habsburgs by
Napoleon's victorious campaign in Italy.

In this agreement, the Venetian possessions were divided between France and Austria. France
annexed the Ionian Islands, including the associated coastal towns of Parga and Prevesa, an action
that brought the French boundaries adjacent to those of the Ottoman Empire. Austria took
possession of the city of Venice, Istria and Dalmatia.

We saw then a turn of events as Napoleon occupied Egypt in 1798 (Ottoman suzerainty) -> the Porte
declared war on France. It led to a cooperation between British, Russian and Ottoman fleets.

In August 1798, battle of the Nile, the British had destroyed the French fleet, followed by the collapse
of their campaign in Egypt.

During the beginning of the 19th century, the third coalition including Britain, Russia and Austria was
formed to fight France (The Porte played a vital support there).

The Battle of the great powers for supremacy in the Mediterranean has direct effects on Ottoman
lands adjacent to the Adriatic Sea and on the Danubian Principalities.

Russian attention on the Ionian Islands and the Italian peninsula. Both Russia and France competed
for influence in the Greek lands and with the leading provincial notable, Ali Pasha of Janina.

N.B. Ali Pasha, variously referred to as of Tepelena or of Janina/Yannina/Ioannina, or the Lion of

Yannina, was an Ottoman Albanian ruler who served as pasha of a large part of western Rumelia, the
Ottoman Empire's European territories, which was referred to as the Pashalik of Yanina. (Wikipedia)

France, like Russia, was also concerned with events in Montenegro.

Speaking of Montenegro, Bishop Peter (Peter I, Montenegrin in full Petar Petrović Njegoš, (born c.
1747, Njeguši, Montenegro—died October 18 [October 30, New Style], 1830, Cetinje), despite his
uneven relationship with Russia in the fast, wished a rapprochement as he was concerned about his
ambitious neighbours (in particular Ali Pasha).

In 1805, Treaty of Pressburg: Habsburg Monarchy ceded to France the Dalmatian coast.

In October the same year, Russia was back at war with France. In May 1806, a French unit was able to
occupy Duvrovnik. Russia and Montenegrin troops then laid siege to the city and bombarded it
heavily without being able to oust the French garrison. Russian could however take Kotor and the
islands of Hvar and Brac.

Peter sent a proposal to the Russian Emperor Alexander I to establish a large state (Montenegro,
Bosnia, Dalmatia, part of Albania, Dubrovnik) but the latter preferred an agreement with France
(Treaty of Tilsit, 1807) -> Kotor was assigned to the Western power.

The Principalities also felt the effects of the Russian-French-Ottoman entanglements. However, here,
Russia was clearly dominant. Iasi, rather than Bucharest became the principal center of Russian
activities.

Before her death, Catherine showed interest in acquiring the Principalities but a cooperation with the
Porte was rather preferred.
In 1802, Russian influence increased again when an Ottoman decree gave power to Russian in
approving the candidates for prince (two Russian candidates held actually office, thanks to this
decree).

In 1806, on French urging, the Porte deposed the two princes, breaching the decree -> Russian troops
came to occupy the Principalities and the Porte declared war in December.

The greatest blow to the Ottoman interests was the reconciliation of Russia and France in the Treaty
of Tilsit. Napoleon and Alexander I, in addition to regulating their Continental differences, prepared
also a possible partition of the Ottoman Empire.

In 1809, Britain made peace with the Ottoman empire and together took the Ionian Islands from
France.

Meanwhile, relations between Russia and France declined.

In the treaty of Bucharest of 1812, the major Russian gain was the acquisition of the area to be
known as Bessarabia -> Russia became a Danubian as well as Black Sea power.

N.B. The Treaty of Bucharest between the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire, was signed on 28
May 1812, in Manuc's Inn in Bucharest, and ratified on 5 July 1812, at the end of the Russo-Turkish
War of 1806–12. The Ottomans had done poorly in the war. (Wikipedia)

The threat of the provincial notables: the fall of Selim III

Not only did the years from 1798 to 1812 bring external dangers to the empire, but, more important,
the central government was faced with the constant resistance of its Muslim and Christian subjects.

What was dangerous for the empire is the inability to deal with Muslim notables (= Ayans) who often
both defied the Porte and oppressed the people under their jurisdiction.

The local notables (who enjoyed the weaking of the Porte following wars), were able to win and hold
power not only because they could muster sufficient military force, but also because they did fulfil a
real need in many areas.

The notables often worked in cooperation with the bandits, the officials, or other elements. They
kept their power because of their military support (mostly from local janissaries). As the Porte
couldn’t defeat janissaries by military force, they tried to use other means.

One good example of those strong local leaders was Pasvanoglu.

However, the outbreak of war with France, forced selim III to make peace with the notables and
Pasvanoglu remained a defiant element in the state. He continued his attacks on Wallachian and
Serbian territory, and he was in touch with French agents. His activities ended with his death (1807).

Ali Pasha had an even longer and successful career. He was acting independently or cooperated with
Constantinople when it suited him. His aim was to construct a kingdom from Albanian and Greek
land that would be under his personal rule. The instability of the political situation along the Adriatic
coast and in Albania made possible to realize a great part of his plan.

Those unruly Muslim leaders were a threat to the lives and possessions of much of the Ottoman
population.
The strongest reaction to janissary unrest and bandit oppression occurred in the pashalik and
Belgrade -> the Serbs, in 1804 rose not against the Ottoman government itself but against the control
of the local military regime which had links with Pasvanoglu.

As the Balkan provinces fell into anarchy and civil war, the situation in Constantinople similarly
worsened. Selim’s reforms, conservative and limited as they were, raised opposition.

In may 1807, Selim was forced to abdicate (replaced by Mustafa IV and then Mahmud II, nephew of
Selim III). Mustafa (grand vezir in the new regime) sought to strengthen the central government,
control the defiant notables and revive military reform.

Mahmud II were also struggling with the janissaries problem.

However, the imperial administration was to face increasing difficulties in maintaining control over
the provinces and in resisting the intrusion of the great powers. One of those, the Habsburg Empire,
was to be involved in Ottoman affairs (next chapter).
Part III: Balkan nationalities under Habsburg rule

Habsburgs Empire = HE in the text

Let’s start with a little summary from previous chapter:

- Ottoman Empire was centralized

- Divine-right monarchy served by a bureaucracy and a military establishment without being
limited by checks from any competing local or provincial authorities
- Taxes were levied and soldiers recruited directly by the state
- Whether the soldier was paid by timar land grants or by a salary, he was under the control of
Constantinople
- In the 17th and 18th century, situation was modified -> A series of weak rulers after Suleiman,
combined with defeats in war, allowed provincial centers to escape from the central
authority
- By the end of the 18th century: in many regions, the local ayans had organized their own
military forces and had usurped the tax-gathering functions for their own benefit.

In contrast, the Habsburg government evolved along another path:

- It was collection of disparate lands united through the house of Habsburg

- The local nobility, not the ruler, had direct control over the mass of the population
- Power to levy taxes and recruit soldiers was in the hands of the provincial estates
- The aim of the government in the 18 th was to establish a system of royal absolutism that
would bring the average citizen under the direct jurisdiction of the ruler and his bureaucracy.

Main differences between Ottoman and Habsburg:

- Ottomans lands collected by victorious sultans; not necessary to make concessions to the
local nobility. They meant to be subject of the Sultan. Sultan held absolute power from God
over the land and the people of his domains.
- Habsburg territories were assembled primarily through alliances and marriages (had to give
to local estates guarantees about their rights) -> those dynastic alliances brought in the vast
territories of Spain, the Netherlands, and part of Italy, as well as the Bohemian and
Hungarian inheritance (following the death of King Louis II at the battle of Mohacs in 1526).
- In the Ottoman Empire, relations between church and state did not become a major problem
(sultan was the religious as well as the political leader of the state; Orthodox and Muslims
find their way together. Orthodox were mainly against Catholic.)
- In contrast, religion was a divisive influence in the Habsburgs despite Catholicism being the
state religion (tension between church and the State over areas of jurisdiction, rivalry among
Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) -> the religion did not contribute to state strength or the
union of the people.

Until the failure of the siege of Vienna (1683), Austrian rulers feared Ottomans and France (who were
often cooperation).
The Habsburg were involved in German affairs and Austrian rulers also held that of Holy Roman
Emperor.

The interests of the Habsburgs lied primarily in Western and Central Europe. In the Balkans, the
government wished an equilibrium rather than the acquisition of further territory.

1. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN THE EMPIRE

During the 17th century, the major South Slavic populations of the Habsburg Monarchy were the
Croats and Slovenes (their number increased after the Treaty of Karlowitz). In 1718, with the
annexation of the Banat, more Romanians and Serbs were added.

All the new territories have formerly been a part of the Kingdom of Hungary and now incorporated
into an Empire.

In the 18th century, the Habsburgs Empire was ruled by 4 monarchs: Charles VI, Maria Theresa,
Joseph II, Leopold II -> they all tried to establish and maintain the central power in the government
while finding a basis on which to unite the diverse land and people.

As we emphasized before, there was major differences in the way the two Empire worked. Here, the
habsburgs rulers had to deal with a nobility with strong rights. This nobility undertook the tasks
handled in the Ottoman Empire by the imperial bureaucracy, the orthodox millet, and the village
communities.

Central government power was connected with foreign policy (commercial relations also), armed
forces, collection of specific taxes (but limitations severely hampered activities of this central
government like difficulty to raise money for wars).

 The goal of those rulers (especially Maria Theresa and Joseph II) was an attempt to widen the
powers of the central administration and to intervene directly in the affairs of the lower social
classes.

However, this attempt of royal absolutism failed largely because of the strength of the local estates
(especially Hungary).

This nobility really enjoyed large privileges (reduced or no tax, a separate legal position, no set
military duties, their landholding unlike that of the sipahis, was not tied to state service.). At the local
level, it also completely dominated the administration (local affairs and justice, police forces, social
services with the church). They were expressing their opinions through the diets (assembly
composed of representatives of nobility and church) and made decisions concerning their province.

The Hungarian had a weak conception of loyalty to the empire except where their interests were
involved. Their prime allegiance was to their provincial centres: the Croatian, Hungarian and
Transylvanian diets and to their “nation” understood not as an ethnic unit, but as the privileged, as
noble section of their society (it did weakened Austria in the competition with France, Prussia and
Russia for instance).

As institutions, both the Catholic and the Protestant churches identified their interests with those of
the nobility of their region -> The Catholic and Protestant churches were a strong force for the
preservation of the status quo and the authority of the estates. Orthodox and Uniate church did not
have a native nobility or representation on the diets and more willing to rely on the central
government.
The middle class (free peasants, merchants, officials, teachers…) more educated have witnessed the
rise of the national sentiment.

At the bottom of social scale laid the great mass of population. Upon this group weighed the major
burden of state and church taxation.

The worst abuses in the HE appears to have been associated with the labor obligations.

As in the Ottoman Empire, crossing social lines was extremely difficult (“Church and state both taught
the message that a good life is that spent in fulfilling as well as possible the function to which one is
assigned).

2. HABSBURG FOREIGN RELATIONS IN THE 18th CENTURY

The danger came mainly from France Prussia.

War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748); Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)

Both of these conflicts involved the question of the possession of Habsburg territories, in particular
Silesia.

Meanwhile, in order to preserve the unity of the lands and in the absence of male heirs, Charles VI
promulgated the Pragmatic Sanction (succession should go the female line). This change needed the
approval of the various diets and support of the major foreign powers.

In 1740, Maria Theresa, his daughter, came to the throne.

In the general European war that followed, Austria was mainly supporter by Britain, Holland, some
German states, and eventually Russia. In opposition, the coalition was Prussia, France, Bavaria, Spain
and Saxony.

In 1748, Austria was compelled to surrender Silesia but pragmatic sanction stood.

The Diplomat (Count Wenzel von Kaunitz), attempted to form a diplomatic front against Prussia. A
defensive agreement was concluded between France and Austria.

Well aware of this, Frederick II of Prussia, in 1756, invaded saxony -> Austria, France, Russia, some
German states again Prussia. But with a new Tsar, admirer of Prussia, Russia eventually rallied
Prussia. It led to the treaty of Hubertusberg in 1763 (Silesia lost was confirmed)

3. THE REFORM PERIOD: MARIA THERESA AND JOSEPH II

After the death of Maria Theresa, Joseph became the sole ruler. Both Maria Theresa and Joseph were
influenced by the ideas and atmosphere of the Enlightenment which affected the attitude of a group
of rulers.

Believing that state power should be used to achieve social progress, they favoured the intervention
of its agents and institutions in many phases of national life.

However, in no sense were the enlightened despots democratic, they did not consider lord and
peasant equals. It can be summarized by this quote “everything for the people, but nothing by the
people”.
Reforms were carried out both during the joint regency of Maria Theresa and Joseph, then by Joseph
alone.

Military had to be made stronger and its tax base widened. Reforms were also directed at shifting the
real power in the state from the local aristocracy to the central government rather than local
institutions representing their own caste.

Reforms covered many aspects of national life: administration, justice, religion, education, economic
policy, and the relationship of lord and peasants. Those reforms were significant for the Croats,
Romanians, Serbs, and Slovenes of the empire.

Those reforms also aimed at strengthening the peasants condition as they were the main source of
tax income and of recruits for the army (gave them more certainty about the lands and decreased
the corvée obligations…)

4. BALKAN NATIONALITIES UNDER HABSBURG RULE

Joseph II, unlike his mother, did want to make all of the people of his empire, noble and peasant
alike, equal citizens before the law and equally responsible to the central government.

He was actually travelling incognito throughout the empire, so he was aware of peasant problems, he
wanted to use his power for social and political change -> it made him an opponent of the nobility.

Joseph II abolished serfdom. However, heavy burden and taxation were still in place. Joseph, in 1789,
tried to ease it.

Joseph, also unlike his mother, was far more extreme in ecclesiastical matters. The sought to block
completely the power of the Catholic church in areas where it came into competition with the state.

His great measure was the Toleration Patent (1781) -> gave to Lutherans, Calvinists, and Orthodox
the right to practice their religion and to construct church buildings. Many of the restrictions on the
Jews were also removed.

Between 1782 and 1786, Joseph dissolved around 700 monasteries (which didn’t really serve their
true function of providing social services) -> those were replaces by state hospitals and institutions to
serve the unfortunate.

He wanted to impose German as the language of the government but got opposition (mainly
Hungarians).

 With those reforms, Joseph II struck at two of the basic institutions of the monarchy: the
provincial nobility and the Catholic church.

However, Joseph had tried to do too much, too fast, so he was forcer to withdraw most of the
changes, particularly in Hungary (1790) (but not those for serfdom, monasteries and Edict of
Toleration).

After his death, Leopold II came to the throne but couldn’t take care much about reforms because of
major events (French revolution, Ottoman wars, revolt in the monarch because of Joseph’s reforms).
Leopold tried to manage those events (restored prestige and privileges to the Hungarian de, Treaty
of Sistova with Ottoman Empire and dealt with internal revolts).

5. THE REFORMS IN PRACTICE: THE BALKAN NATIONALITIES IN THE 18th CENTURY

Hungary, Croatia, and Slavonia

Majority of the Croats, Romanians, and Habsburg serbs lived in lands belonging to the crown of St.
Stephen and their fate connected with the Hungarian, Croatian and Transylvanian dies.

After the expulsion of the Ottoman army and administration at the end of 17 Th century, the
Hungarian nobility was determined to re-establish its control over all of the lands associated with the
crown of St. Stephen.

The Hungarian strength lay not with the great landowners, the magnates, but with the lower nobility,
the gentry, and their control of the counties, the basic administrative units. The counties had their
own assemblies, which ran the local government and chose representatives to the diet.

For instance, this body, in 1687, accepted the Habsburg emperor, Leopold I, as the hereditary king of
Hungary (the term Emperor only applied to the territories included in the HRE, of which Hungary was
not part).

Despite the assent of the diet, the establishment of Habsburg rule in the Hungarian kingdom was a
difficult process. Mainly because of religious process (Hungarian were Calvinists or Unitarians)

In 1703, under the leadership of Ferenc Rakoczy and because of continued opposition, a major revolt
against Habsburg came into life. Noble and peasants were united against the HE. It led to the Peace
(compromise) of Szatmar in 1711 which had to confirm the privileges of the nobles and a large
autonomy of Hungarian lands. The diet also accepted the Pragmatic Sanction but under indivisibility
of the lands of St. Stephen.

Treaty of Karlowitz: Slavonia and part of Croatian territory came under HE. Dalmatia to Venice.

Two political units came out of that (Civil Croatia and Civil Slavonia which had their own way of
working - p. 17 PDF, part 3). However, the difficulty of maintaining an existence apart from
Hungarian and Austrian direct control remained a major Croatian problem at all times. They however
tried to remain independent (in the way “non associated”) to Hungary: “According to law, we are a
land affiliated with Hungary, and in no way a subject people of Hungary”

However, the reforms of Maria Theresa and Joseph II changed aspects of the Croatian
administration. In 1779, both Civil Croatia and Civil Slavonia were placed under the Hungarian
Regency Council.

Most radical measures came from Joseph II: the county assemblies of the Hungarian Kingdom ceased
to exist.

Those measures made both Hungarians and Croatians angry. Strongly opposed to Joseph’s reforms,
Croatians surrendered much of their autonomy to the Hungarian diet which eroded the role of the
Zagreb diet. Hungarians and Croats also jointed to oppose German as the official language.

They found a compromise: the joint diet of 1791 kept Latin but agreed that Hungarian would be a
required subject in the schools of Hungary.

Civil Slavonia enjoyed more privileges and rights of autonomous rule. After the end of the Ottoman
domination, the Habsburgs government gave or sold large estates to nobles, merchants and other to
develop the area. Slavonia got much less nobility than Civil Croatia and the Slavonian status was
never able to claim the same position as Croatia.

Though we have witnessed some reform attempts (regards serfdom and lands), they mostly
languished. The next major changes were not be made until the revolution of 1848.

The Military Frontier

By the end of the 17th century, the HE had acquired a large Serbian population concentrated in the
Banat and southern Hungary, but also in the lands of the Military frontier.

The largest single migration occurred with the immigration of Arsenije III and his followers.

The border between the two empires was difficult for each to hold and to garrison. HE had issues
with raising money for war. Groups of bandits preyed on both sides so maintaining peaceful
conditions was difficult.

In early 16th: the HE used transient, unruly population who, in exchange of the free exercise and the
Orthodox religion agreed to settle as military colonists. Two administrative centers were established:
Karlovac for the Croatian Military Frontier and Varazdin for the Slavonian.

In 1630, a charter was issued (the Statuta Valachorum) -> the Military Frontier was put directly under
the control of the Emperor, while the land remained in the possession of the state in return of
military service.

The Military Frontier was by this time expected to provide men to fight all over Europe and not just
on the border.

Many internal conflicts lasted with Croatia, Slavonia and Hungary due to this border (P. 11 PDF, part
III)

The Serbs
Serbian population living in the HE were quite different: didn’t control a definite portion of territory
and they were Orthodox.

However, they were granted privileges (by Leopold I in 1690), at the time of the migration of Arsenije
III: freedom of religion and autonomous church administration. We saw a similar development with
the millet system -> their rights were not dependent on a territorial base.

With the suppression of Péc, Sremski Karlovci became the foremost Serbian Orthodox ecclesiastical
and educational center. The literary language at this time was the so-called Slavo-Serbian.

However, tensions started to appear because of the predominance of Catholicism and a growing
desire to have a special territory and a recognized secular administration.

Serbians privileges depended upon the protection of Vienna, so they preferred to cooperate with the
central authority.

By the end of the 18th century, Serbian colonies were present in the countryside and in the cities. Like
the Greek merchants, Serbian traders became an important element in the commerce of the
monarchy. By the end of the century, community of difference social levels: merchants, Orthodox
clergy, teachers, officers of the Military Frontier.

Transylvania

 Political conditions

After the Ottoman conquest in the 16 th century, Transylvania was given wide autonomous rights
(even more than Wallachia and Moldovia).

By the end of the 16th century, three recognized “nations”: Hungarians, Szeklers (closely related to
Hungarian who spoke the language) and the Saxons (German immigrants) + 4 religions: catholic,
Lutheran, Calvinist and unitarian. The religious divisions in the province were significant with those 3
groups belonging to different churches.

In general, the province was organized much as the other lands of the Hungarian crown: nobility
through their country organizations and their position in the diet dominated the political life; Saxon
territory (Fundus) gas certain special institutions.

Hungarians and Romanians were not allowed to hold property in Saxon’s territory nor they could
marry Saxons.

The political and religious organization left out of the picture the Romanian (almost entirely enserfed
peasants and very few nobility) population and the Orthodox church. The Romanians’ adherence to
the Orthodox faith was to prove a handicap to their political and social position (unlike the Serbs who
got some privileges).

In 1688, after the defeat of the Ottoman armies, the diet declared an end to Ottoman rule and the
transition to HE was not easy.

In 1691, Leopold I issued a charter confirming the continuation of the system (3 nations + 4 religions).
Arrangements were made for the taxes and military parts.

At the head of the province stood the institution of Gubernium (one president + twelve councilors).

 The Uniate and Orthodox churches

HE faced difficulties similar to those in other lands of the Hungarian crowns (opposition from
Hungarian nobility). However, due to the Orthodox peasants, some opportunities were there to
attempt to strengthen their position.

In seeking converts at the end of the 17 th (Romanians’ orthodox were easier target because of their
lack of recognition). Catholics concentrated on winning converts not to Catholicism but to the Uniate,
or Greek Catholic, church, which required little change for the Orthodox (they needed to agree on
the Council of Florence which had been called to attempt to reunite the two great branches of the
Christian religion).

When the former Orthodox clergy accepted the act of Union of 1698, Leopold I issued the Diploma of
1699 which made the union legal and gave to the Uniate clergy the rights and privileges of the
Catholics.

The Uniate church became a target for attack as giving rights to Romanians was seen as unbalancing
the three powers in place. The Orthodox establishments also denounced the Uniate church.

However, the Uniate church has positive results for the Romanians and it became the center of a
Romanian intellectual revival that had a profound effect not only on Transylvania, but also within the
Principalities. “Transylvanian school” (helped in shaping the Romanian national ideology).

Main character in this: Ioan Inochentie Clain. (P. 14 PDF, part III).

 The reforms in Transylvania

The peasant question was important to our account because the Romanians formed the major
component of the serf population. In 1769, an urbarium was issued for Transylvania and set some
limits for the feudal burden. The land question was also linked to the Military Frontier (to extend it
into Transylvania in 1762).

The conditions here for the peasant soldiers (at the Frontier) were considerably better than those for
the serfs and tenants on the neighbouring estates.

First, HE sought to only settle Uniates but they also tolerated Orthodox soldiers after.

There was a big peasant uprising in 1784, a major revolt in which the peasant participants expressed
centuries of bitter grievance.

HE first tried to suppress the movement by force but without the expected success, undertook
negotiations with the rebel leaders. The army was then sent against the peasants which were
completely crushed.

Joseph II was however exposed. In 1785, he issued a decree ending serfdom and, in some areas,
granting the peasant personal freedom. It was confirmed by the diet in 1791 and 1792.

Also, in 1781, Joseph II issued a decree on Concivilität (equality of citizenships) which ended the
exclusive rights of the Saxon territory. Romanians and Hungarians, like Germans, could now acquire
property and enter guilds.

In 1784: radical reorganization of the Transylvanian political structure. As elsewhere, he eliminated

the counties, which were the base of noble power and substituted new divisions headed by officials
chosen by Vienna.

With the Edict of Toleration (1781), the Orthodox was also in a better legal position + stop treating all
Romanians as Uniates.
Here also, with Joseph’s death, major administrative changes in Transylvania were revoked -> return
to 3 powers + 4 religions. But retention of the provisions ending serfdom and lessening of the
limitations on the Orthodox did benefit the Romanian people.

However, despite attempts from Romanian to extend their rights, once back in control, Hungarian,
Szekler and Saxon aristocracy has no intention of making concessions.

 The Banat

Three other areas of the HE is also important. Two will be discussed later (Bukovina and the Slovene
lands).

Here, we talk only about the Banat.

Banat has a turbulent past because it had been under direct Ottoman rule. After the HE acquired the
province in 1718, the question of its political future arose.

Firstly: it was made a crownland and placed under military administration. It was divided into eleven
districts. The HE has full control of the disposal of the land. The aim was to make the region a strong
bulwark against the Ottoman Empire and prosperous area for rising taxes.

Although it was primarily Romanian, a large Serbian immigration over a long period had occurred.

Population was mostly peasant. After Habsburg annexation, the authorities made efforts to attract
German settlers (to develop the lands). who were given privileged (no taxes for a period).

Majority of the population was Orthodox, but the Serbs were in a better position than the
Romanians.

A part of the Banat territory was organized as a Military Frontier similar to that in Croatia and
Slavonia.

Until the last decade of the 18th, the Banat was under Vienna administration. They joined after the
region to Hungary, but as a district province.

6. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND NAPOLEON

From the accession of Leopold II in 1790 until the conclusion of the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the
main concern of the HE was its relations with France, which was a deadly threat.

European rulers also realized that many of the conditions that had brought about the revolution in
France were present elsewhere (for instance, peasants in the HE).

The next emperor of HE, Francis II (1792-1835) In addition to the abolition of serfdom and Toleration
Edict adopted earlier, brought the ear of enlightenment despotism to an end.

The French Revolution had shaken all of those in privileged positions and the nobility needed the
support of the monarchy against the larger threat (while before the nobility stood against the central
authority).

Various measures of internal control were introduced: spy system, police surveillance, censorship.
Education emphasized loyalty and good citizenship etc.
The Habsburg conflicts with France resulted in a long series of depressing defeats and unfavorable
peace treaties.

As a reminder, from 1792 to 1797, Austria fought in the War of the First Coalition in alliance with
Prussia, Britain, Holland, and Spain.

In the Treaty of Campo Formio, the HE ceded its Belgian lands and in return received venice, Istria
and Dalmatia.

The War of second coalition, from 1798 to 1801, in which Austria fought with Russia, Britain, Naples,
Portugal and the Ottoman Empire, ended with the Treaty of Lunéville.

The War of the Third coalition, in 1805, was concluded by the Treaty of Pressburg. Here the HE ceded
the venetian lands to the new kingdom of Italy and lose more German territory.

Following the Treaty of Schönbrunn, Galicia and more German lands were surrendered.

In 1809, Dalmatia, some Slovene lands, parts of the Croation Military Frontier, and Civil Croatia were
joined together to form the Illyrian Provinces, an area that was incorporated directly into France ->
through this Balkan dependency, France aimed to establish a strong base in the region and put
pressure on the HE, as well as having direct access to Ottoman territory.

The Code Napoléon was applied, and all men were declared equal before the law, which was a game
changer for the peasant’s class, even though high taxation remained.

French occupation has lasting influences. First, the old order was complexly overturned. Local
languages were also more widely in use.

Also, the Napoleonic rule brought together South Slav people under one government.

Later on, a coalition with HE brought Napoleon to defeat. Congress of Vienna in 1814 and 1815
followed that. The great concerns in the negotiations were about the Polish lands.

Istria and Dalmatia were annexed. Northern Italy was organized into the Kingdom of Lombardy-
Venetia, place under a Habsburg archduke.

Ottoman Empire did not participate in the Congress of Vienna, and Balkan problems were not
discussed.

The Treaty of Vienna left the HE the predominant power in the Italian peninsula and among the
German states.

The HE thus joined with Prussia and Russian in the Holy Alliance.

BALKAN PEOPLE UNDER OTTOMAN AND HABSBURG RULE: A COMPARISON

For both the Ottoman and Habsburg leaders, the chief political question in the 18 th century was the
relative power balance between the central and the provincial authorities:

- The HE sought to gain a control over feudal estates that it had never possessed previously
The resistance to Austrian centralism and absolutism came from a historic nobility (rival of the
Habsburg family)

- The Ottoman sultans, in contrast, attempted to reassert an authority that they had once
held.

The Porte was challenged by a motley array of ayans, beys, Christian and Muslim military, and
outright bandits.

From the military point of view:

The Ottoman situation was more dangerous, since foreign states did contemplate the
dismemberment of the empire. The Porte faced threats from Austria, Russia and Persia. Military
internal reform had then to be done in order to face enemies.

The Austrian efforts were far more sophisticated than the Ottoman ones. The political structure was
modified to raise more taxes and better access to the population for the direct recruitment. Plus, the
purposes of changes were more than military (political ideology of the Enlightenment)

Additional comparison:

In the Ottoman lands, the Christian people were openly designated a second-class citizen but still,
they enjoyed a large decree of self-government. Millet system but also the village communities were
important. (Remember: justice, collection of taxes, police could be under direct local control).

 The Ottoman Empire never had a firm control over its territories or the surrounding seas.

The situation in the Habsburgs lands was quite different. A manorial system was in effect:
everywhere the nobility dominated the local government (and peasants were at their mercy). Status
was depending more on social class than on religion or nationality. As peasants, no political rights
and no recognized institutions of self-government.

In the military Frontier, a system of village government similar to that in Ottoman regions was set up.

Although the two empires shared many similar problems, to the outside observer at the time, the
differences were profound.

In the eyes of educated Europeans, the Ottomans was a backward, even barbarous state (because of
their way to execute, to kill, imprison…) + Ottoman cities were dirty, congested and primitive in
comparison with those of the west + corruption, problems or order and security

In comparison, the HE was one of the great centers of Europe. Baroque culture, civilization… Law and
order were assured.

There was also the question of the peasants. In the HE and in the Danubian Principalities they were
enserfed or dependent. They carried the major burden of state and church taxes and made payments
for their land. Reforms were introduced as we saw but were overall unsuccessful.
However, unlike the Ottoman Christian, the Habsburg peasant was not well situated to express his
desires either legally or by revolt. The nobility, not a village notable, ran the local administration ->
there were no peasant armed forces like those formed by the armatoles and haiduks.

Despite the lower general conditions, some Ottoman Christian peasants did have advantages in
landholding. If not in theory at least in practice.

Leaders in both empires in the 18th century attempted to deal with what they regarded as the major
problems.

The Ottomans emphasis was on military reforms to enable the state to control rebellious local
pashas and to withstand foreign invasion.

The Austrian monarchs, especially Joseph II, attempted a fundamental reorganization of the
government.

By the end of the Napoleonic wars, the major issues were left unsolved. The Porte still faced the
dangers of outside aggression and internal dissolution. Problem of the HE to hold together an empire
remained.

Moreover, new issues, arising from the economic changes of the ear, were to add additional
complications to the situation.