-3

Is there a historic reason for why the Balkans are so fragmented? Because while I can't name any of the top of my head, I'm sure there are regions that are just as ethnically diverse, but with less fragmentation and animosity between different ethnicities. So why is this the case in the Balkans?

6
  • 7
    What is your source for the Balkans being historically fragmented? It was unified under the Ottomans for centuries, by the Romans (both East and West) for centuries before that. How is this different from te simple rise of Nationalism through the 19th and early 20th Century? Aug 7 '18 at 11:03
  • 7
    What has your research shown you so far? Where have you already searched? What did you find? Please help us to help you. You might find it helpful to review the site tour and Help Centre and, in particular, How to Ask. Aug 7 '18 at 11:03
  • It's no more fragmented than Iraq but because it's in Europe, it's a convenient example in western countries of fragmented nations.
    – Daniel
    Aug 8 '18 at 9:10
  • 1
    I should add that the current troubles are religious. This is simplistic, but for example you have the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians who for the most part descend from the same people and they speak the same language. Bosnians are largely Moslem and used the cyrillic alphabet though also use the roman one now, Serbs are Orthodox Christian and use the cyrillic alphabet, Croats are Catholic and use the roman alphabet. You get similar things in Iraq with Arabs, Kurds, Sunni, Shia, Arabic, Aramaic with lots of crossovers that aren't consistent.
    – Daniel
    Aug 8 '18 at 9:19
  • 1
    @PieterGeerkens Unified? Strange wording, i have never heared about the unification of native American tribes by white settlers or the unification of India with the help of British Empire.
    – Greg
    Aug 10 '18 at 2:06
3

Your question is based on a false premise:

"I'm sure there are regions that are just as ethnically diverse, but with less fragmentation and animosity between different ethnicities. So why is this the case in the Balkans?"

Here are the countries of the Balkans listed by descending area in square kilometres), with the additional nations of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Northern Ireland mixed in for comparison:

  • Romania 238,392
  • Greece 131,940
  • England 130,279
  • Bulgaria 110,994
  • Hungary 93,030
  • Scotland 77,993
  • Serbia 77,453
  • Ireland 70,273
  • Croatia 56,594
  • Bosnia & Hercegovina 51,129
  • Albania 28,748
  • Macedonia 25,713
  • Wales 20,779
  • Slovenia 20,273
  • Northern Ireland 14,130
  • Montenegro 13,812
  • Kosovo 10,908

As you can see, the Balkans is no more or less fragmented nationally than the British Isles are.

That there has been an undue amount of warfare in the region over the past two hundred years, in the breakup of the Ottoman and Austrian empires that previously ruled the area for a millennium, is comparable to the centuries of bloodshed that led to the independence of Ireland in the early 20th Century, and the unification of England, Scotland and Wales from the 12th to 18 centuries.

Further, the breakup of the Ottoman Empire over the 19th and early 20th centuries coincides with the rise of nationalism throughout most of Europe. The broken nature of the mountainous terrain had fostered a wide variety of distinct ethnic-religious cultures that all saw themselves as distinct nations, but not always with distinct natural borders. This latter point is particularly true for the religiously distinct but otherwise very similar Serbians, Croats and Bosnians; intertwined territorially and sharing a language with slight dialectal variation.


Update

A commenter claims that my comparison of the Balkans to the British Isles is clearly inappropriate because:

As diverse as the British Islands are, their overwhelming history is not one of fracture but one of unity. Unity of a single powerful country dominating it's internal rivals.

I counter that the History of Ireland alone, and of any century of that history from the 11th to the 19th, is more fragmented and ethnically violent than the Balkans has ever seen. It is simply more remote from our present consciousness.

Similarly the main island has seen numerous periods of internecine violence comparable to anything witnessed by the Balkans over a comparable time period:

  • In the power vacuum created in the departure of the Roman Empire in the mid 5th century, we see 600 years of successive invasions and internecine strife through Anglo-Saxon invasion of a Celtic homeland, consolidation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, Viking Raids and the conquest by Canute, followed again by Norman Conquest. Bloody conquest of Wales and Scotland follows for another two centuries, during which time the attempts at conquest of Ireland begin.

  • In the wake of the unsuccessful Hundred Years War with France in 1453, there follows in quick succession, with intermittent breaks:

    • Three decades of War of the Roses until 1485
    • Decades of religious strife from the divorce of Catherine of Aragon in 1531 through the ascension of Elizabeth I in 1558, including rule by a foreign monarch in the form of Philip II of Spain
    • More religious strife and Civil War, with breaks, from the ascension of Charles I in 1625 through the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and on to the Battle of Culloden and defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie in 1746.
16
  • 2
    In the 19th century potato famine of the 1940's? In the Easter Riots? During the rebellions of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the English Civil War? During Edward I's conquest of Wales? Certainly there have been periods when British history has been domestically tranquil, just as the opposite has also been true. The Balkans were quite tranquil for most of the Ottoman rule. Aug 7 '18 at 21:20
  • 1
    You forget 1485 and 1688, both occasions on which a foreign claimant landed and successfully gained the throne from a reigning incumbent: respectively Richard III and James II. Aug 7 '18 at 21:35
  • 1
    Since when were the King of Spain, Philip II and the Stadtholder of the Netherlands William III and the Elector of Hanover, George I not foreign influences? Aug 7 '18 at 21:39
  • 1
    we have a different understanding of what foreign and conquered means. Henry VII(Tutor) was a "foreign claimant"? and King James in 1688 didn't "conquer" Britain, he was next in line of succession. He was Queen Elizabeth's successor. He was also ruling scotland at the time, not France, Spain or Netherlands.
    – user27618
    Aug 7 '18 at 21:58
  • 1
    @JMS: Perhaps another reading of "History of the English Speaking People" is in order. Henry VII was Welsh, certainly regarded as foreign by many English nobles. James VI and I was the successor to Elizabeth I; his grandson James II was deposed in 1688 by William III, Prince of Orange, a Dutchman, Stadtholder of the United Provinces of the Netherlands and certainly foreign. Philip II was officially co-monarch with his wife (Bloody) Mary I while also King of Spain. Aug 7 '18 at 22:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.