-Western Anatolia was one of the only three places where we're sure agricultural revolution started on its own (the other ones being Mesoamerica and China)
-The Balkan peninsula, the Aegean sea and Anatolia were the homes of two (Mycenaean and Hittites) of the great local powers powers before the Bronze Age collapse (others being the Assyrians, the Egyptians and the Babylonians).
-The Balkans were at the forefront of philosophy, becoming the cradle of Western civilization and a great influence to Islamic civilization, two (arguably the two most important) of the great civilizations in actuality (the only others being Chinese and Indian).
-The Balkans was the place of birth of greatest conqueror in history up to late antiquity, with the empire reaching all the way to India
-The Balkans and Anatolia were the area where the Roman Empire survived all the way to the 15th century, having quite possibly the biggest economy in the world during most of that time and by far the biggest city in Europe (even now it's the second biggest after Moscow, and Moscow was directly founded in response to its conquest).
-Now, those areas are home of several failed and failing states, and Balkanization has become synonym with states breaking up. It's probably enough to say that the most successful and influential state in the area is probably Turkey.
How and why does this happen.
>>1358446
>Moscow was directly founded in response to its conquest
This makes me doubt everything else you wrote
>>1358446
Didn't the Americas have their own agricultural revolutions, too?
>>1358446
Anatolia got fucked by constant wars, and then by turkish corruption.
Mainland balkans got fucked by being constantly conquered by foreigners with no reprise to form their own states. Heck, this continued into the 90's when the commie bloc dissolved.
Given time and work, it will heal
Western Balkans need to get into the E.U. asap and start developing. Bulgaria and Romania are already showing promising signs. This region could be doing much better than it currently is. There is a lot of talent and a lot of potential there. Yugoslavia used to be quite technologically advanced and agriculturally the whole area is quite fertile, but also has unspoiled nature.
![51ZigBEGX+L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rv1sbh9.jpg "51ZigBEGX+L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg")
>>1358483
Moscow existed before that in the same way Byzantium existed before Constantine made it the capital of the ERE.
The first two points are sourced from this book, the others are general knowledge.
>>1358497
I did mention Mesoamerica, though?
>>1358503
>Given time and work, it will heal
Doesn't quite seem like it, with how most states in it belong to three completely different spheres of influences (though I guess Islamic and EUropean are slowly becoming more close to each other).
>>1358517
Yeah, Bulgaria seems to me like the shiniest beacon of hope for the region right now.
>>1358446
>-Now, those areas are home of several failed and failing states, and Balkanization has become synonym with states breaking up. It's probably enough to say that the most successful and influential state in the area is probably Turkey.
Ottoman empire is the only answer you need. There's a good reason everyone in the Balkans hates the Ottomans (and Turks by extension). Well, that coupled with 2 world wars that completely destroyed already poor, previously enslaved states that don't have the infrastructure, the proper geopolitical location or population to support large-scale industrialisation.
>>1358558
Are you being sarcastic? Bulgaria pre and post EU is unrecognisable. Just the number of factories (for the low wages) and company HQs (for tax reasons) that have moved from Greece to Bulgaria in the past 6 years is crazy.
>>1358595
The Ottoman Empire became decadent in it's later stages, and it's certainly cause for some of the regions polarization, but given that it ended close to a hundred years ago it's not quite an answer on it's own.
Gommunism and later Russian influence (and its polarization in contrast with Western influence) may probably be a bigger factor, especially since the latter is still ongoing.
>>1358606
>Are you being sarcastic?
Nope, don't be so defensive.
>>1358630
I'm not, I'm not even Bulgarian. Bulgaria has quite a shit reputation that's all so people usually shit on it. Joining the EU is the best decision they ever took.
>>1358630
It's not just this though. There is an interesting after-effect that you see in areas that were occupied by a foreign power for long periods of time, where the local population is a lot more distrusting of authority and the establishment and as a result there is a great deal of low-level corruption going on. You see this in pretty much all ex-colonies, in Southern Italy (that was occupied/ruled by a host of different nations), in most ex-Ottoman states, in ex-Soviet states etc. When you are ruled by people who are not your own, the authorities are never just perceived as the authorities, they are also the occupier. I'd like to look into this a bit more actually.
>>1358641
>people usually shit on it
Really? I don't think they shit on Bulgaria (or Romania, for that matter) more than the Balkans in general desu. In fact, it's probably not relevant enough to most people so I doubt they'd care enough to shit on it.
>>1358668
That's an interesting thesis, and it would explain the blatant corruption in (particularly) Latin American and South/South East Asian states. But how would you reconcile that with the fact that many of these nations (like the aforementioned Bulgaria) are willing to join organizations that are known to dictate national policies to an extent? Do they trust European leadership more than their own?
Alternatively, how does Serbia's eternal pro-Russian stance factor into this?
This is the geographical region I care about the least in the world.
I am more interested in Africa, South America, random ass islands, even antarctica and greenland when it comes to resource and expansion speculation for the future.
I can draw you a geographically accurate map of the world except for this region. I don't know and I don't care.
>>1358711
>Do they trust European leadership more than their own?
First of all, this. This is in fact a line I've heard verbatim from many people from the Balkans.
Second of all, they can see very clearly that joining the E.U. would raise their quality of life/incomes. Being conquered by Spain, the Ottomans and any of the big colonial Empires meant you were treated as a colony (obviously). Your resources were drained and taxation was always supposed to feed the Empire, it wasn't used to advance your quality of life or support local infrastructure/your own state. Therefore you had nothing to gain from being part of these Empires and even more importantly, taxation was seen as outright theft. However in the case of the EU even the most devout Eurosceptic cannot deny that it actually sends shitloads of money to poor, new members (such as ex-yugo and ex-soviet states). In fact that's one of the reasons Western European Eurosceptics hate the EU.
>>1358742
No one cares what you care about.
>>1358750
you obviously cared enough to respond to me.
>>1358742
>I am proud to be ignorant.
If you are European you should be ashamed. Not being able to accurately draw a map of Europe is pleb-tier education.
>>1358755
I didn't say anything about pride.
Nationalism, son.
>>1358711
Serbia isn't eternally pro-Russia, they are pro- the only Great Power that didn't bomb them when the shit hit the fan. These things aren't set in stone. To be honest, it's a bit of a vicious circle, the longer they remain pro-Russian the longer the big EU powers will not trust them and the longer the big EU powers don't trust them (and undermine them), the longer they will be pro-Russian.
>>1358762
This is quite a babby-tier understanding of the issue.
>>1358446
Byzantine Empire collapsed and its culture replaced with an alien Turko-Arabic culture. Even Byzantine Christianity owed its existence to Greek philosophy, but the Ottomans were simply too far removed.
>>1358748
Makes you wonder what would happen to the region if the EU ended up dissolving. It would probably become quite similar to Latin America.
>>1358765
But Pan-Slavism has been a Serbian thing for centuries, and Russia has been its consistent ally ever since.
I'd feel sorry for the Serbs and their situation if they weren't usually insufferable.
>>1358792
Ottoman """Turks""" were mostly Anatolian subjects of the Empire's fringes though. Islamic culture is quite foreign, but even that had had a fair bit of Greek and (mostly) Persian influence. It should be noted that Persian culture had an influence all the way to Western Europe. It's not like it was Arabs invading, and the Empire was quite cosmopolitan for its day.
>>1358558
>the others are general knowledge.
Not to be an ass but there's no general knowledge in history, you need to reference archaeology and sources.
>>1358856
It would be closer to Cold War-era South America if anything, as Russia and the West would tacitly fight over influence in the region. What groups would then form (most likely Slovenia + Central European could be one trading bloc, Montenegro/Serbia/Bosnia/FYROM/Bulgaria/Romania in another, Greece would probably join the latter and Croatia could join either) is open to speculation.
With regards to Pan-Slavism, all I'll say is that money talks. If Serbians see tangible economic benefit from EU membership and if they know that any territorial ambitions of Albania (or other neighbours) would instantly become an EU issue as well as a Serbian one, they would care less about Russia's alleged assistance. Don't forget Russia did fuck-all during the Yugoslav Wars, Greece's leaks of NATO intelligence were arguably more important and even those were due to the rather mundane reason that Greece's establishment at the time had strong (personal) economic ties to Serbia's government, all this stuff about Orthodox brotherhood is a romantic facade. As I said earlier, money talks.
>>1358446
>Moscow was directly founded in response to its conquest
?
>>1358864
>you need to reference archaeology and sources.
If I was writing a paper, maybe.
I understand your complaint, but I won't go through the effort to provide sources for what really is general knowledge.
>The Balkans [read: the (Hellenic) Greeks] were at the forefront of philosophy [between the Iron Age and the Roman conquest], becoming the cradle of Western civilization [due to Greek thought influencing both Roman and Christian thought, both of which would later define Europe and its sphere of influence ("the West")] and a great influence to Islamic civilization [doubly for influencing Persian culture during the Alexandrian conquest and due to Greek works ushering a golden age in the Islamic world], two (arguably the two most important [due to Western culture shaping the modern world and Islam having an extremely wide range]) of the great civilizations in actuality (the only others being Chinese [which has pretty much been neutered it its homeland] and Indian [which has a smaller reach]).
>The Balkans was the place of birth of greatest conqueror [read: Alexander the Great, who was factually born in Macedon] in history up to late antiquity [admittedly debatable depending on the definition of Late Antiquity], with the empire reaching all the way to India [known fact].
>The Balkans and Anatolia were the area where the Roman Empire [usually called the Byzantine Empire] survived all the way to the 15th century [1453 never forget], having quite possibly the biggest economy in the world [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_economy] during most of that time and by far the biggest city [Constantinople] in Europe [up to the 13th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople#cite_note-6] (even now it's the second biggest after Moscow [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population]
Admittedly, I don't have a source for >>1358996, and it doesn't stand on its own, so you can forget that claim.
>>1358964
>It would be closer to Cold War-era South America if anything
I find it hard to believe, considering South (and Central) American governments got hit even without proven Soviet influence, and such a trigger happy west would lose support between third parties, most of which have no reason to antagonize non-gommie Russia.
Do you really believe former Yugo states and their neighbors would join in a single bock? There seems to be quite a bit of animosity between all of them (mostly Serbia vs everyone else, but also FYROM vs Bulgaria)
>Don't forget Russia did fuck-all during the Yugoslav Wars
Isn't it more like "couldn't" rather than "didn't"?
>Greece's leaks of NATO intelligence were arguably more important and even those were due to the rather mundane reason that Greece's establishment at the time had strong (personal) economic ties to Serbia's government
I don't quite understand this part.
>>1359049
I suppose I should have clarified, I don't think it would be like Latin America in terms of the wars that took place, but in that Russia and the West would have lots of proxy duels on the political arena. Elections and counter-elections, "colour revolutions", bloodless coups etc. This is the 21st century after all.
I do, because to be honest, they would stand more to lose from not doing so. If they didn't it would be by decisions that were not in their own self-interest. Like I said, the make-up of these groups is up to speculation and that is true for all of Europe.
>Isn't it more like "couldn't" rather than "didn't"?
I don't know about that, yes Russia was quite poor, but surely something still remained from the USSR that was capable to project power both covertly and overtly to all parts of the globe and gather intelligence on everyone, not even 10 years prior to the events.
>I don't quite understand this part.
One of the most important contributions to the Serbian side in the wars, were Greek leaks of NATO intelligence to the Serbians. When that was found out by NATO, Greece was cut out of the loop. This was coupled with PR campaigns in Greece and humanitarian aid etc, in favour of the Serbians. This is unique to Greece and happened in no other country in Europe or NATO. The reason for this is often claimed to be "Orthodox brotherhood", cultural ties etc. The true reason for this is that various members of the Greek political establishment were investing and laundering money with members of the Serbian political establishment at the time. There is a book written on the subject called "Unholy Alliance: Greece and Milosevic's Serbia".
>>1359132
lel Greece was corrupt even back then and they couldn't foresee its crisis?
>>1359209
Protip: All countries have always been corrupt.
Greece's political establishment was just too short-sighted so they took took it too far.
>>1359132
Well Greece and Serbia have always been BFFs
Since they hate the same people the others hate and the fact that they haven't really fought against one another
Their relations are always great and they always work with eachother
And also regarding the fact that everyone directly around them hates them
Well, no wonder they'd be so close to eachother
>>1359005
>>1358483
>>1358996
Moscow is still third Rome though.
>Germanic people are STILL the barbarians fighting Rome
>Now they've allied with the Muslims
>>1359856
>German tribes brought down the Western side of the Roman Empire and took its holdings (Franks took Gaul, Anglos took Britain, Vandals took NA, Ostrogoths and later Lombards took Italy, Visigoths took Spain), but Rome survived in Byzantium
>Justinian fought these to recover Roman clay, but fell short after beating the Vandals and most Goths. Byzantium eventually settled for an alliance against Muslims, since at least Germanic kingdoms were Christian
>the Germans later betrayed Byzantium and sacked Constantinople, leaving it ripe for the taking by Muslims conquerors
>they also started the reformation, because fuck any vestige of Rome, apparently
>Romans reorganized in Moscow
>German infighting weakened them, so Germans invented communism to take care of the new Romans
>it didn't work
>now they're trying to form an alliance with the Muslims to end it once and for all
The novel writes itself, desu.
Wew
>>1359856
>>1359905
>mfw I'm now aware of the Germano-Roman Secret War
>muh "Roman" Catholic Church
>>1360139
It stopped being Roman when Germans infiltrated its ranks.
Constantine realized the infiltration had been too deep, so he cut his loses and gave up the western half of the empire to the Germans.
Reformation was just cutting loose ties to avoid the church being usable in the future by the Romans should they ever recover from the sack and fall of Constantinople, it had already served its purpose.
>>1358711
>Serbia's eternal pro-Russian stance
>>1358765
This anon is right, but i'd like to elaborate on the subject.
Serbia has been dragged trough a lot of mud since 1991. The collective west bombed, sanctioned and demonized the whole nation in the media. And after the war, it's just been eternal promises. Levels of sticks and carrots. Serbia economically still hasn't reached it's 1990. gdp per capita. The people want a normal life, so joining the EU is something that every government strived for. So the Serbian government announces to the people something that the EU requested and say that after that we're going to join. But as soon as that request is fulfilled more and more requests and demands appear.
To say that the privatization process was handled poorly is an understatement.Many companies were sold for dirt cheap, or the money was pocketed by politicians. And many of the companies and factories have been shut down. The fact that Serbia was left out of membership both in 2004 and 2007 (especially 2007) has been a huge blunder. Considering that Bulgaria and Serbia were at that point roughly doing the same economically.
The ever increasing demands are seen as a kind of blackmail. And resemble how Serbia was treated in the 90s. Given how much effort was taken to appease the west by the government(s) at that time it was very discouraging.
So after all that a lot of people turned to Russia, since it was not hostile to Serbia. While the EU appears as Serbia's new "friends".Russia was never much of a friend to Serbia, as it always left Serbia hanging except in WW1. Russia is just seen by a lot of the people as some sort of liberator. And they forget that Russia has pretty much done fuck all for Serbia.
But every Serbian government, and almost every political party has the same mantra about joining the EU.
It's like a girl telling you she'll fuck you, but after you do this, and then this, and then that etc... leading you on constantly.
>>1360558
> Russia is just seen by a lot of the people as some sort of liberator. And they forget that Russia has pretty much done fuck all for Serbia.
This is the result of continuous Russian propaganda through the politicians and media-figures they control. It happens all around Europe. It's usually the Popular Right who promote this and their supporters who believe this, aka pleb-tier plebs.
>>1360752
I can't be sure of that. The only Serbian pro Russian right wing party won 10% in the recent election. They didn't even get into parliament last elections. But i feel like the pro Russian sentiment is growing. It's been growing since 2008 when Kosovo declared independence.
They were a considerable power in politics until 2008 when the current ruling party split from them. They used to be the single largest party since 2003, but they never managed to form a coalition.
On the contrary, all the media in Serbia is constantly talking about joining the EU.
I find it hard to discuss my gripes about the EU, because everyone in Serbia seems to be brainwashed. They're either pro EU and believe it's some utopia with no flaws, or they're seriously delusional with "muh russian brothers will destroy amerika" which leads me to quickly dropping the conversation.
>>1358446
Literally none of the states pictured are failing or failed, all of them have quite high standards of living compared to the rest of the world.
>>1360752
Russia seriously doesn't need propaganda. It just has to keep opposing Kosovo's independence and veto stuff like Srebrenica genocide resolution in UN, and its popularity in Serbia will rise.
Both EU and US try to appear like Serbia's new friends and if Wikileaks are to be believed they put a lot of money into that purpose, but they really aren't doing well.
>>1358446
>having quite possibly the biggest economy in the world during most of that time
It's pretty much always been some Indian or Chinese Empire up until western European nations started imperialistic ambitions and colonialism.
>>1358792
>Turko-Arabic
>not Turco-Persian
fucking peasant
>>1360993
When you leave in the third world, anything's an improvement I guess.
>>1361009
It's a point of contention, actually. Some argue that it was the most robust economy in between the movement of the capital and the arrival of Islam, which is a time when China wasn't at its best. Wouldn't know if the Gupta empire had a stronger economy or not.
>>1358517
Oh ya the EU is doing wonders for Greece anon. All those insignificant industrial nations will make good consumer markets for Germany though I guess.
And neither Bulgaria or Romania is making very good progress. Their progress is just financial manipulation by banksters and the result of slightly less corruption.
>>1361315
>Oh ya the EU is doing wonders for Greece anon.
That's a combined fault of successive corrupt Greek governments, the management of the Eurozone and the austerity politics of the (mainly German) European centre-right. The EU and Greece both fucked up big time, BUT:
The difference between Greece pre-EU, i.e pre-1981 and post-1981 is almost as significant as that between Greece pre-Marshall plan and post-Marshall plan. We're talking about different countries. To ignore that is stupid and misinformed and this will also be true for Romania and Bulgaria, just give it time. Hopefully, for their own sake, they won't make the same mistakes Greece did (as your post seems to indicate they're doing).
>>1358446
Isn't Slovenia doing pretty well?
