Second Meeting of Balkan History - Reconsidering Balkan rebellions in the Ottoman and post-Ottoman era: concepts, interpretative frameworks and methodologies
This meeting aims at questioning the concepts, theoretical approaches and methodologies used by researchers to deal with rebellions and contestations of power in the longue durée of Balkan history, i.e. during Ottoman and post-ottoman times. Therefore, the meeting has two scopes: 1) to reflect on the main theoretical frameworks within which rebellions are studied and 2) to review the methodologies used in the study of Balkan rebellions.
In the frame of this workshop, we ask from specialists of Balkan rebellions to present case studies or synthesis research papers emphasizing the topic’s theoretical and methodological approach.
Some historiographical landmarks
Over the major part of 20th century, historians and social scientists alike interpreted Ottoman rebellions as signs of anarchy, depravation and, more generally, decline. At the same time, Balkan historiographies emphasized the alleged national character of early Christian rebellions. However, since the 1980s, Ottoman rebellions start to receive considerable attention in the frame of state formation theories, which are broadly used by historians and sociologists in order to replace the paradigm of Ottoman decline (see Abou-El-Haj 84 and 91, Barkey 1994, Tezcan 2010, Yaycioglu 2017, Yildiz 2017, Hadjikyriacou 2023). These scholars draw on the General Crisis theory, and more recently on the Age of Revolutions paradigm – thereby studying 17th and late 18th century climatic, demographic, fiscal and/or economic crisis – in order to understand whether the different Ottoman rebellions caused the Ottoman polity to break down or, on the contrary, to be consolidated.
Some other scholars set out to reconsider 19th and early 20th century rebellions with regard to the concept of “social bandits,” coined by Eric Hobsbawm (1969) to describe the ways that medieval and early modern banditry (1969) fitted the structures of agrarian societies (Koliopoulos 1987, Kotaridis 1993). Another set of studies use Charles Tilly’s repertoires of contention in order to distinguish between premodern and modern features of 19th century rebellions (Onaran 2009, Clayer 2014, Yildiz 2017, Sigalas 2023).
Some other studies on brigands, pirates and paramilitaries focus equally on the relation with the state, although from a different perspective. For they consider that, instead of being opposed by the state, such illegal activities are foster by it, as well as by the capitalist market, especially in times of expansion (Gallant 1999, Tsoutsoumpis 2016). Therefore, brigandage, piracy and even rebellion can be seen as indirect, illegal, means whereby states and markets expand in contested and/or uncertain terrain. We reach a similar conclusion when examining banditry in relation to paramilitarism. For paramilitarism is meant to expand the means and the goals of the regular army and therefore of the state (Tasić 2020).
The case of Macedonia is particularly relevant, in this regard. Tasos Κostopoulos and the MACAUTH research team are studying how the confrontation of paramilitary bands in ottoman Macedonia, after the 1903 Ilinden uprising, favored the development of a series of intertwined practices of authoritarianism by the Balkan states.
Some patterns stand out:
1) More often than not, historiography uses the study of rebellions in order to question the nature of the state, the strength of its institutions, their adaptability or not etc. According to different authors’ perspectives, rebellions can be seen as a threat for the state, an element of state formation (or consolidation) or an indirect means of the expansion of its influence. Rebellion – and or paramilitarism – might also be considered to transform the character of the state: weakening the state, making it more authoritarian etc.
2) Consistent with the issue of the state is question of whether rebellions are meant to be “traditional” of “modern.” Here again, authors distinguish among agrarian, religious, nationalist, political revolts etc. according to different criteria.
3) Although they are presumably distinct, the figures of the rebel, the bandit (or the brigand), the partisan, and even the revolutionary are often intertwined with each other. Thus, for instance, Karen Barkey (1994) contends that the famous Celali revolts of the 17th century were mere banditry, thereby downplaying their impact on the Ottoman power, which she considers to have been consolidated in this period.
We ask from the participants in the meeting to reflect on the abovementioned historiographical issues. We also ask them the to focus on the repertoires and routines of rebellions. For we believe that only through the adequate description and conceptualization of the rebels’ attitudes and practices we can move beyond existing historiography’s theoretical flaws. Besides, concerning the repertoires of contention, one should consider a more elaborated chronology and geography than those involved by the binary scheme tradition-modernity. Therefore, we propose to reflect together on the way the repertoires and routines of rebellions persist and change in the longue durée of Balkan history and within Balkan geography.