4 ms·
Wait, what? None of the territories here were changing hands peacefully, and the World War I events have nothing to do with the Ottomans. In WWI Austria-Hungar
by dragandj 8y ago
Wait, what? None of the territories here were changing hands peacefully, and the World War I events have nothing to do with the Ottomans.
In WWI Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia and that's how the WWI started. It did a lot of damage to Serbian state. But this is 100 years after 1804, when Serbia started a process of breaking off from slavery under Turks. By the mid-19 century Serbia was practically independent.
I am comparing two areas that have been under foreign Empires for a long time. The area north of Danube and Sava was only briefly under Ottoman rule, and then was conquered by Austria(+Hungary) while to the south of Danube and Sava was under Turkish rule for 300-500 years. Not only Serbia, but also Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania etc.
All the areas that were ruled by the Turks are backwaters even to this day, the areas to the north much less so. There are other factors, of course, but everyone from the Balkans clearly recognizes this (development) dividing line.
WW 1 and WW 2 came later and brought its own share of destruction, but that destruction came after the nations were formed here, and the distinction I'm talking about have much older roots, that can still be clearly seen, even in how the towns and cities are laid out, ways of doing business etc.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoTheir exacts mat be off, but my principal is correct. Look at Belgrade, a border town in Ottoman control. South of it the land becomes noticeably less habitable, with mountains covering most of the region, and Belgrade itself has been razed 44 times. It's a natural border that is constantly warred over, not some relic of Ottoman cruelty compared to Hapsburg benevolence.