The terms ‘nation’, ‘nationalism’ and the like are open-ended concepts. 1 Walter Bagehot, who
presented the history of the 19th century as that of ‘nation-building’ observed that “We know what it is
when you do not ask us, but we cannot very quickly explain or define it.” Hobsbawm points out that
attempts to establish objective criteria for nationhood, or to explain why certain groups have become
‘nations’ and others have not, are often made based on a single criteria such as language, common
territory, common history, cultural traits etc. 2 All such objective definitions have however, failed, for
exceptions can always be found. Moreover, the criteria used for this purpose – language, ethnicity etc.
– are themselves vague and ambiguous. Yet it is with these concepts that the history of the modern
times is inextricably linked. In a period that saw the unification into large states of previously
disunited smaller states (notably Italy and Germany), the opposite happened in the Balkans. In that
case a large state (though not necessarily one that had offered national self-determination) broke down
into smaller fragments of a once greater unit.3
Due to the unique isolated Balkan terrain, the dominant form of consciousness was village patriotism.
The 20th century Balkan lands were largely a land of peasants. There was also a divide between the
rural areas dominated by people of Slav origin and the urban areas populated largely by Greeks. The
identity of the people was therefore asserted at two levels. The first was the ethnic identity based on
linguistic differences. The second was the religious identity, in which the Greek Orthodox Church was
perceived as distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. Since these two also had different linguistic
bases, a linguistic identity was also automatically preserved in the Balkans. The religious identity of
common man was however much stronger.
The Ottoman Empire of the 17th century was multi-ethnic and multi-religious. In this empire, it was
easy for ethnic identities like a Greek identity to be preserved. Hardening of religious identities was
only witnessed late in the 19th century. The Ottomans had created a millet system, in which the people
would be governed by their religious authorities who would be answerable to the central authorities.
These religious and administrative local elite were unpopular figures.4
When we look at the emergence of Balkan nationalism, we note four basic elements. The first of these
was the peasantry. In the largely religious protest movements, peasant participation was high due to
their religious millenarianism. Overthrow of Turkish rule was also seen by them in religious terms. It
should of course be noted that Christians were not against the Muslim Turks in a united manner. The
peasantry was also active in nationalist activities since in the context of transformed agricultural
relations, economic factors made it lucrative for them to assist in the downfall of the Turks.
A second important element was the intellectual class. The emergence of such an influential
intellectual class in the Balkans is testimony to the fact liberal and tolerant character of the Balkan
state. These intellectuals who emerged from the class, which had prospered and risen under the
Ottomans, began to espouse modern values of nationalism. The Greeks, in particular the Phanariots
were one such group. They were also instrumental in the preservation and fostering of a modern Greek
identity.
Early Balkan nationalism was understood in the context of Enlightened Despotism. Libertarian
Enlightenment of the time of Napoleon and the French Revolution also influenced Balkan nationalism.
A third strand that flowed into this was the Romantic reaction to Enlightenment, with its focus on
1
Gellner Ernest, “Nations and Nationalism”, 1983, p. 1-2.
2
Hobsbawm Eric, “The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789-1848”, 1962, p. 132-33.
3
Joshi Vandana, “Revisiting Modern European History: 1789-1945”, p. 321.
4
Majer Georg Hans, “The Functioning of a Multi-Ethnic and Multi-Religious State: The Ottoman Empire”, 2009.
, culture and preservation of tradition. It is here that we see a crystallization of the European stereotype.
This is important since a national identity is not just a political, but also a cultural identity. It is
interesting that in the Russian fashion, many of these westernized intellectuals went to the countryside
in search of the ‘soul of the country’, and came out disillusioned with reality. The intellectuals were
however a divided group and could not constitute a unified movement since their secular nature
inevitably ran them against the hierarchy of the Greek Orthodox Church.
The Local Turkish Chiefs or Pashas were also an important element in the emergence of Balkan
nationalism. Due to the vast nature of the Ottoman state, there was invariably a struggle between these
power local officers and the central government at Istanbul. It was in this conflict that these governors
often chose to foster Balkan nationalism to serve as a tool. Muhammad Ali in Egypt and Ali Pasha in
Greece were such powerful governors.5
The most important element in Balkan nationalism was however the role of the Great Powers, in what
they termed as the ‘Eastern Question’.6 This Eastern question concerned the disposal of the Balkans
after the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore here one witnessed increasing Russian interests,
who began to lay claims to the Balkans for strategic reasons, on religious and racial grounds. As a part
of the racial argument, Russia encouraged Pan-Slavism in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary was deeply
concerned with the question of nationalism in this region primarily because it was a multi-ethnic
region where Balkan nationalities often overlapped with ethnic identities. Britain in fear of Russia’s
advance towards Constantinople supported the Turks against Russia. The French too had ambitions in
the region and followed a pro-Turkish policy.
Serbia
The Serbs were a Slav people who had been conquered in the 14 th century by the Turks at the Battle of
Kosovo (1389). Peasants had little role to play in the emergence of modern Serbian nationalism. The
capital, Belgrade was dominated by the Local Provincial Governors or Pashas, who were engaged in a
power struggle for Serbian autonomy. The wazirs or viziers who were the agents of the central
government and the Knez or Christian nobles were the important players in Serbian nationalism.
In 1804, the Pashas revolted against Turkish rule. Their outrage was directed against the Christian
nobility who were loyal to the Turks. The Christian nobles decided to appeal to Russia for help when
help from the Ottomans was not forthcoming. This is where religion as a factor entered Russian
rhetoric in the Balkans. Between 1815 and 1830 under Russian pressure, the Pashas were replaced by
the Christian notables. In 1830, Serbia was also granted autonomy in order to secure her neutrality in
the Greek war of independence. In 1878 following a Russo-Turkish war, Serbia was declared an
independent state at the Congress of Berlin. For Serbia however this was not the realization of her
nationalism and she sought to unite all Slavs into a Yugo-Slav union with Russian help. It was the
Austrian insecurity at this that led directly to the World War.
Greece
The Greeks were a largely disunited group comprising mainly of the poverty stricken peasantry or
klepht. Greek priests held a prestigious position. In Greek nationalism a crucial role was played by the
intelligentsia or Phanariots. Ali Pasha the Turkish governor had been engaged in a struggle with the
centre and he began to systematically flirt with Greek nationalism to use it for his own interests. The
Greek war of independence began when the Turks moved in to crush Ali Pasha. The movement against
the Turks however was not united and was crushed by the end of the 1920s.
5
Karpat, Kemal H. "The Balkan National States and Nationalism: Image and Reality." Islamic Studies 36, no. 2/3
(1997): p. 329-59.
6
Joshi Vandana, “Revisiting Modern European History: 1789-1945”, p. 322-23
presented the history of the 19th century as that of ‘nation-building’ observed that “We know what it is
when you do not ask us, but we cannot very quickly explain or define it.” Hobsbawm points out that
attempts to establish objective criteria for nationhood, or to explain why certain groups have become
‘nations’ and others have not, are often made based on a single criteria such as language, common
territory, common history, cultural traits etc. 2 All such objective definitions have however, failed, for
exceptions can always be found. Moreover, the criteria used for this purpose – language, ethnicity etc.
– are themselves vague and ambiguous. Yet it is with these concepts that the history of the modern
times is inextricably linked. In a period that saw the unification into large states of previously
disunited smaller states (notably Italy and Germany), the opposite happened in the Balkans. In that
case a large state (though not necessarily one that had offered national self-determination) broke down
into smaller fragments of a once greater unit.3
Due to the unique isolated Balkan terrain, the dominant form of consciousness was village patriotism.
The 20th century Balkan lands were largely a land of peasants. There was also a divide between the
rural areas dominated by people of Slav origin and the urban areas populated largely by Greeks. The
identity of the people was therefore asserted at two levels. The first was the ethnic identity based on
linguistic differences. The second was the religious identity, in which the Greek Orthodox Church was
perceived as distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. Since these two also had different linguistic
bases, a linguistic identity was also automatically preserved in the Balkans. The religious identity of
common man was however much stronger.
The Ottoman Empire of the 17th century was multi-ethnic and multi-religious. In this empire, it was
easy for ethnic identities like a Greek identity to be preserved. Hardening of religious identities was
only witnessed late in the 19th century. The Ottomans had created a millet system, in which the people
would be governed by their religious authorities who would be answerable to the central authorities.
These religious and administrative local elite were unpopular figures.4
When we look at the emergence of Balkan nationalism, we note four basic elements. The first of these
was the peasantry. In the largely religious protest movements, peasant participation was high due to
their religious millenarianism. Overthrow of Turkish rule was also seen by them in religious terms. It
should of course be noted that Christians were not against the Muslim Turks in a united manner. The
peasantry was also active in nationalist activities since in the context of transformed agricultural
relations, economic factors made it lucrative for them to assist in the downfall of the Turks.
A second important element was the intellectual class. The emergence of such an influential
intellectual class in the Balkans is testimony to the fact liberal and tolerant character of the Balkan
state. These intellectuals who emerged from the class, which had prospered and risen under the
Ottomans, began to espouse modern values of nationalism. The Greeks, in particular the Phanariots
were one such group. They were also instrumental in the preservation and fostering of a modern Greek
identity.
Early Balkan nationalism was understood in the context of Enlightened Despotism. Libertarian
Enlightenment of the time of Napoleon and the French Revolution also influenced Balkan nationalism.
A third strand that flowed into this was the Romantic reaction to Enlightenment, with its focus on
1
Gellner Ernest, “Nations and Nationalism”, 1983, p. 1-2.
2
Hobsbawm Eric, “The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789-1848”, 1962, p. 132-33.
3
Joshi Vandana, “Revisiting Modern European History: 1789-1945”, p. 321.
4
Majer Georg Hans, “The Functioning of a Multi-Ethnic and Multi-Religious State: The Ottoman Empire”, 2009.
, culture and preservation of tradition. It is here that we see a crystallization of the European stereotype.
This is important since a national identity is not just a political, but also a cultural identity. It is
interesting that in the Russian fashion, many of these westernized intellectuals went to the countryside
in search of the ‘soul of the country’, and came out disillusioned with reality. The intellectuals were
however a divided group and could not constitute a unified movement since their secular nature
inevitably ran them against the hierarchy of the Greek Orthodox Church.
The Local Turkish Chiefs or Pashas were also an important element in the emergence of Balkan
nationalism. Due to the vast nature of the Ottoman state, there was invariably a struggle between these
power local officers and the central government at Istanbul. It was in this conflict that these governors
often chose to foster Balkan nationalism to serve as a tool. Muhammad Ali in Egypt and Ali Pasha in
Greece were such powerful governors.5
The most important element in Balkan nationalism was however the role of the Great Powers, in what
they termed as the ‘Eastern Question’.6 This Eastern question concerned the disposal of the Balkans
after the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore here one witnessed increasing Russian interests,
who began to lay claims to the Balkans for strategic reasons, on religious and racial grounds. As a part
of the racial argument, Russia encouraged Pan-Slavism in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary was deeply
concerned with the question of nationalism in this region primarily because it was a multi-ethnic
region where Balkan nationalities often overlapped with ethnic identities. Britain in fear of Russia’s
advance towards Constantinople supported the Turks against Russia. The French too had ambitions in
the region and followed a pro-Turkish policy.
Serbia
The Serbs were a Slav people who had been conquered in the 14 th century by the Turks at the Battle of
Kosovo (1389). Peasants had little role to play in the emergence of modern Serbian nationalism. The
capital, Belgrade was dominated by the Local Provincial Governors or Pashas, who were engaged in a
power struggle for Serbian autonomy. The wazirs or viziers who were the agents of the central
government and the Knez or Christian nobles were the important players in Serbian nationalism.
In 1804, the Pashas revolted against Turkish rule. Their outrage was directed against the Christian
nobility who were loyal to the Turks. The Christian nobles decided to appeal to Russia for help when
help from the Ottomans was not forthcoming. This is where religion as a factor entered Russian
rhetoric in the Balkans. Between 1815 and 1830 under Russian pressure, the Pashas were replaced by
the Christian notables. In 1830, Serbia was also granted autonomy in order to secure her neutrality in
the Greek war of independence. In 1878 following a Russo-Turkish war, Serbia was declared an
independent state at the Congress of Berlin. For Serbia however this was not the realization of her
nationalism and she sought to unite all Slavs into a Yugo-Slav union with Russian help. It was the
Austrian insecurity at this that led directly to the World War.
Greece
The Greeks were a largely disunited group comprising mainly of the poverty stricken peasantry or
klepht. Greek priests held a prestigious position. In Greek nationalism a crucial role was played by the
intelligentsia or Phanariots. Ali Pasha the Turkish governor had been engaged in a struggle with the
centre and he began to systematically flirt with Greek nationalism to use it for his own interests. The
Greek war of independence began when the Turks moved in to crush Ali Pasha. The movement against
the Turks however was not united and was crushed by the end of the 1920s.
5
Karpat, Kemal H. "The Balkan National States and Nationalism: Image and Reality." Islamic Studies 36, no. 2/3
(1997): p. 329-59.
6
Joshi Vandana, “Revisiting Modern European History: 1789-1945”, p. 322-23
