Ottoman Bulgaria
Ottoman Bulgaria | |
---|---|
1396–1878 | |
Common languages | Bulgarian |
Religion | Sunni Islam (official, minority) Bulgarian Orthodox Church (majority) |
Demonym(s) | Bulgarian |
Government | |
Beylerbey, Pasha, Agha, Dey | |
History | |
1396 | |
1878 | |
Today part of | Bulgaria |
History of Bulgaria |
---|
|
|
Main category Bulgaria portal |
The history of Ottoman Bulgaria spans nearly 500 years, beginning in the late 14th century, with the
The brutal suppression of the Bulgarian
The sabotage of the Conference, by either the British or the Russian Empire (depending on theory), led to the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), whereby the much smaller Principality of Bulgaria, a self-governing, but functionally independent Ottoman vassal state was created. In 1885 the Ottoman autonomous province of Eastern Rumelia unified through a bloodless coup with the Principality of Bulgaria.
Administrative organization
The Ottomans reorganised the Bulgarian territories, dividing them into several
This category of land could not be sold or inherited but reverted to the Sultan when the fiefholder died. The lands were organised as private possessions of the Sultan or Ottoman nobility, called "mülk", and also as an economic base for religious foundations, called vakιf, as well as other people. The system was meant to make the army self-sufficient and to continuously increase the number of Ottoman cavalry soldiers, thus both fuelling new conquests and bringing conquered countries under direct Ottoman control.[2]From the 14th century till the 19th century Sofia was an important administrative centre in the Ottoman Empire. It became the capital of the beylerbeylik of Rumelia (Rumelia Eyalet), the province that administered the Ottoman lands in Europe (the Balkans), one of the two together with the beylerbeylik of Anatolia. It was the capital of the important Sanjak of Sofia as well, including the whole of Thrace with Plovdiv and Edirne, and part of Macedonia with Thessaloniki and Skopje.[3]
The
Legal status and taxation
Christians paid disproportionately higher taxes than Muslims, including poll tax,
According to Radishev, overtaxation became a particularly poignant issue after jizye collection in most of the country was taken over by the Six Divisions of Cavalry.[7]
Bulgarians also paid a number of other taxes, including a tithe ("yushur"), a land tax ("ispench"), a levy on commerce, and various irregularly collected taxes, products and corvees ("avariz"). Generally, the overall tax burden on the rayah (i.e., Non-Muslims), was twice as high as that on Muslims.[8]
Christians faced a number of other restrictions: they were barred from testifying against Muslims in inter-faith legal disputes.[9] Even though they were free to perform their own religious rituals, this had to be done in a manner that was inconspicuous to Muslims, i.e., loud prayers or bell ringing were forbidden.[citation needed] They were barred from certain professions, from riding horses, from wearing certain colours or from carrying weapons.[10][11]
Nevertheless, there were specific categories of
Religion
The Ottoman Empire's greatest advantage compared to other colonial powers, the
Bulgarian ceased to be a literary language, the higher clergy was invariably Greek, and the
Non-Muslims did not serve in the Sultan's army. The exception to this were some groups of the population with specific statute, usually used for auxiliary or rear services, and the infamous blood tax (кръвен данък), also known as
While a minority of authors have argued that "some parents were often eager to have their children enrol in the Janissary service that ensured them a successful career and comfort",[14] scholarly consensus leans very much the other way. Christian parents are described to have resented the forced recruitment of their children,[15][16] and would beg and seek to buy their children out of the levy. Many different ways of avoiding the devshirme are mentioned, including: marrying the boys at the age of 12, mutilating them or having both father and son convert to Islam.[17] In 1565, the practice led to a revolt in Albania and Epirus, where the inhabitants killed the recruiting officials.[13]
It was not rare for the boys to attempt to preserve their faith and some recollection of their homeland and their families. For example, Stephan Gerlach writes:[18]
They gather together and one tells another of his native land and of what he heard in church or learned in school there, and they agree among themselves that Muhammad is no prophet and that the Turkish religion is false. If there is one among them who has some little book or can teach them in some other manner something of God's world, they hear him as diligently as if he were their preacher.
When Greek scholar Kaskaris visited Constantinople in 1491, he met many Janissaries who not only remembered their former religion and their native land but also favoured their former coreligionists. One of them told him that he regretted having left the religion of his fathers and that he prayed at night before the cross which he kept carefully concealed.[19][20][21][22][23]
Spread of Islam
Islam in Bulgaria spread through both colonisation with Muslims from Asia Minor and conversion of native Bulgarians. The Ottomans' mass population transfers began in the late 1300s and continued well into the 1500s. Most of these, but far from all, were involuntary. The first community settled in present-day Bulgaria was made up of Tatars who willingly arrived to begin a settled life as farmers, the second one a tribe of nomads that had run afoul of the Ottoman administration.[24][25] Both groups settled in the Upper Thracian Plain, in the vicinity of Plovdiv. Another large group of Tatars was moved by Mehmed I to Thrace in 1418, followed by the relocation of more than 1000 Turkoman families to Northeastern Bulgaria in the 1490s.[26][24][27] At the same time, there are records of at least two forced relocations of Bulgarians to Anatolia, one right after the fall of Veliko Tarnovo and a second one to İzmir in the mid-1400s.[28][29] The goal of this "mixing of peoples" was to quell any unrest in the conquered Balkan states, while simultaneously getting rid of troublemakers in the Ottoman backyard in Anatolia.
However, Ottomans never pursued or practiced forced Islamisation of the Bulgarian population, as had earlier been claimed by Communist Bulgarian historiography. According to scholarly consensus, conversion to Islam was voluntary as it offered Bulgarians religious and economic benefits. Meanwhile he (the Turk) wins (converts) by craft more than by force, and snatches away Christ by fraud out of the hearts of men. For the Turk, it is true, at the present time compels no country by violence to apostatise; but he uses other means whereby imperceptibly he roots out Christianity...[14]
Thus, in a number of cases, conversion to Islam can be said to have been the result of tax coercion, due to the much lower tax burden on Muslims. While some authors have argued that other factors, such as desire to retain social status, were of greater importance, Turkish writer Halil İnalcık has referred to the desire to stop paying jizya as a primary incentive for conversion to Islam in the Balkans, and Bulgarian researcher Anton Minkov has argued that it was one among several motivating factors.[31]
Two large-scale studies of the causes of adoption of Islam in Bulgaria, one of the
These factors had an impact on the entire country. Due to them, the population of Ottoman Bulgaria is presumed to have dropped twofold from a peak of approx. 1.8 million (1.2 million Christians and 0.6 million Muslims) in the 1580s to approx. 0.9 million in the 1680s (450,000 Christians and 450,000 Muslims), after growing steadily from a base of approx. 600,000 (450,000 Christians and 150,000 Muslims) in the 1450s.[35]
First revolts and the Great Powers
While the Ottomans were ascendant, there was overt opposition to their rule. The first revolt began at the time
Those were followed by the Catholic
Bulgarian National Awakening and Revival
The Bulgarian National Revival was a period of socio-economic development and national integration among
The
The
The foundation of the Exarchate was the direct result of the struggle of the Bulgarian Orthodox population against the domination of the Greek
In this way, in the struggle for recognition of a separate Church, the modern Bulgarian nation was created under the name
Also the
Armed resistance to the Ottoman rule escalated in the third quarter of the 19th century and reached its climax with the
Demographics
Late 1300s to early 1800s
The effect of the Ottoman conquest on Bulgarian demography is uncertain and subject to much contention. However, the population of present-day Bulgaria in the 1450s is estimated to have hit a low of 600,000 people, divided into approx. 450,000 Christians and 150,000 Muslims (or a Christian-to-Muslim ratio of 3:1 or 75 per cent to 25 per cent) following the wide-scale migration of Muslims from Anatolia and emigration of Christians to Wallachia, etc.[35] Both the Christian and Muslim population then grew steadily until the 1580s, reaching approx. 1.8 million, or 1.2 million Christians and 0.6 million Muslims (or a Christian-to-Muslim ratio of 2:1 or 66 per cent to 33 per cent), where the higher growth among the Muslims is attributed to both conversion of Christians and the last waves of Muslim migrants from Anatolia.
As a result of the near-constant war led by the Ottoman Empire from the mid-1500s to the late 1600s, the need for additional tax revenues, the sixfold increase in
1831 Ottoman census
According to the
The census only covered healthy taxable men between 15 and 60 years of age, who were free from disability.Millet | Republic of Bulgaria borders
| |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Healthy taxable men aged 15–60 years | % | |||||||||
Islam millet/Muslims | 181,455 | 36.5% | ||||||||
Rayah/Orthodox Christians1 | 296,769 | 59.7% | ||||||||
Gypsies/ Romani
|
17,474 | 3.5% | ||||||||
Jews
|
702 | 0.1% | ||||||||
Armenians | 344 | 0.1% | ||||||||
TOTAL | 496,744 | 100.0% | ||||||||
1No data about the Christian population of the kazas of Selvi (Sevlievo), Izladi (Zlatitsa), Etripolu (Etropole), Lofça (Lovech), Plevne (Pleven), Rahova (Oryahovo) as well as Tirnova (Veliko Tarnovo) and its three constitunet nahiyas.[40] 2For figures comparable with post-1878 data, Arkadiev has suggested using the formula N=2 x (Y x 2.02), cf below,[41][42] which would give a total population of 2,006,845, of whom 1,198,946 Orthodox Christians, 733,078 Muslims, 70,595 Romani, 2,836 Jews and 1,390 Armenians. |
By using primary population records from the Danube Vilayet, Bulgarian statistician Dimitar Arkadiev has found that men aged 15–60 represented, on average, 49.5% of all males and that the coefficient that would make it possible to calculate the entire male population is therefore 2.02.[41] To compute total population, male figures are then usually doubled (Bulgarian authors have suggested a coefficient of 1.956, but this has not gained international acceptance).[42] Using this method of computation, (N=2 x (Y x 2.02)), the population of present-day Bulgaria in 1831 would stand at 2,006,845 people.[41]
Ottoman population records (1860-1875) for the future Principality of Bulgaria
The
The Sanjaks of Vidin, Tirnova, Rusçuk, Sofya and Varna, with individual border changes, cf. below.[43][44] The two other sanjaks in the Danube Vilayet, those of Niš and Tulça, were ceded to Serbia and Romania, respectively.
According to the "Kuyûd-ı Atîk" Ottoman Population Register, the male population of the five sanjaks to eventually form the future Principality of Bulgaria was divided into the following ethnoconfessional communities in 1865:[45]
Community | Rusçuk Sanjak | Vidin Sanjak | Varna Sanjak | Tırnova Sanjak | Sofya Sanjak | Principality of Bulgaria2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Islam Millet | 138,017 (61%) | 14,835 (13%) | 38,230 (74%) | 77,539 (40%) | 20,612 (12%) | 289,233 (38%) | ||||
Muslim Roma
|
312 (0%) | 245 (0%) | 118 (0%) | 128 (0%) | 766 (0%) | 1,569 (0%) | ||||
Bulgar Millet
|
85,268 (38%) | 93,613 (80%) | 9,553 (18%) | 113,213 (59%) | 142,410 (86%) | 444,057 (59%) | ||||
Ullah Millet
|
0 (0%) | 7,446 (6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 7,446 (1%) | ||||
Ermeni Millet | 926 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 368 (1%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1,294 (0%) | ||||
Rum Millet | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2,693 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2,693 (0%) | ||||
Non-Muslim Romani people | 145 (0%) | 130 (0%) | 999 (2%) | 1,455 (1%) | 786 (0%) | 3,515 (0%) | ||||
Yahudi Millet | 1,101 (0%) | 630 (1%) | 14 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1,790 (1%) | 3,535 (0%) | ||||
TOTAL | 225,769 (100%) | 116,899 (100%) | 51,975 (100%) | 192,335 (100%) | 166,364 (100%) | 753,342 (100%) | ||||
1 Male/female-aggregated estimates for the total population and all ethnoconfessional communities can be calculated using the formula suggested by Ubicini and Michael Palairet (N x 2),[42] which would give a total population for 1865 of 1,506,684 people, divided into 888,114 Bulgarians, 578,466 Muslims, 14,892 Vlachs, etc.
2 Refers to the Sanjaks of Vidin, Tirnova, Rusçuk, Sofya and Varna, which were united into the Principality of Bulgaria by the decisions of the Congress of Berlin in 1878. |
Between 1855 and 1865, the population of the Danube Vilayet underwent seismic changes, as the Ottoman authorities settled more than 300,000
According to Turkish scholar Kemal Karpat, the Tatar and Circassian colonisation of the vilayet not only offset the heavy Muslim population losses earlier in the century, but also counteracted continuted population loss and led to an increase in its Muslim population.[52] In this connection, Karpat also refers to the material differences between Muslim and non-Muslim fertility rates, with non-Muslims growing at the rate of 2% per annum and Muslims usually averaging 0%.[53]
Koyuncu also notes a much higher natural rate of increase among Non-Muslims[54] and attributes the tremendous rate of increase in the Muslim population of the five Bulgarian sanjaks plus the Sanjak of Tulça of 84.23% (220,276 males) vs. 53.29% (229,188 males) for Non-Muslims from 1860 to 1875 to the colonisation of the vilayet with Crimean Tatars and Circassians.[55]
Community | Rusçuk Sanjak | Vidin Sanjak | Varna Sanjak | Tırnova Sanjak | Sofya Sanjak | Principality of Bulgaria2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Islam Millet | 164,455 (53%) | 20,492 (11%) | 52,742 (61%) | 88,445 (36%) | 27,001 (13%) | 353,135 (34%) | ||||
Circassian Muhacir | 16,588 (5%) | 6,522 (4%) | 4,307 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 202 (0%) | 27,589 (3%) | ||||
Muslim Roma | 9,579 (3%) | 2,783 (2%) | 2,825 (3%) | 6,545 (3%) | 2,964 (1%) | 24,696 (2%) | ||||
Bulgar Millet
|
114,792 (37%) | 131,279 (73%) | 21,261 (25%) | 148,713 (60%) | 179,202 (84%) | 595,247 (58%) | ||||
Vlachs, Catholics, etc. | 500 (0%) | 14,690 (8%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 15,190 (1%) | ||||
Rum Millet (Greeks) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3,421 (4%) | 494 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3,915 (0%) | ||||
Non-Muslim Roma | 1,790 (1%) | 2,048 (1%) | 331 (0%) | 1,697 (1%) | 1,437 (1%) | 7,303 (1%) | ||||
Ermeni Millet | 991 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 808 (1%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1,799 (0%) | ||||
Yahudi Millet | 1,102 (0%) | 1,009 (1%) | 110 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2,374 (1%) | 4,595 (0%) | ||||
TOTAL | 309,797 (100%) | 178,823 (100%) | 85,805 (100%) | 245,894 (100%) | 213,180 (100%) | 1,033,499 (100%) | ||||
1 Male/female-aggregated estimates for the total population and all ethnoconfessional communities can be calculated using the formula suggested by
Jews, 7,830 Greeks and 3,598 Armenians. in 1878.2 Refers to the Sanjaks of Vidin, Tirnova, Rusçuk, Sofya and Varna, which were united into the Principality of Bulgaria by the decisions of the Congress of Berlin |
The Congress of Berlin ceded the kaza of Cuma-i Bâlâ[43] from the Sanjak of Sofia (male Muslim population of 2,896 and male non-Muslim population of 8,038)[57] to the Ottoman Empire and the kaza of Mankalya[43][57][58] from the Sanjak of Varna (male Muslim population of 6,675 and male non-Muslim population of 499) to Romania and attached the kaza of Iznebol (male Muslim population of 149 and male non-Muslim population of 7,072) from the Sanjak of Niš to the Principality of Bulgaria.[59][60][61][44]
At the same time, a flash summary of the results of the Danube Vilayet Census published in the Danube Official Gazette on 18 October 1874 (also covering the Sanjak of Tulça) gave twice as many male Circassian Muhacir, 64,398 vs. 30,573, and slightly fewer "established Muslims" than the final results published in 1875.[62][64] According to Turkish Ottomanist Koyuncu, 13,825 male Circassians were carried over to the "established Muslims" column and additional 20,000 were left out or simply lost in the carry-over.[56]
The division of Muslims into "Established" and "Muhacir" in the 1873-1874 Census and the 1875 Ottoman Salname was not based on origin, as the name might suggest, but on "taxability". Thus, colonists whose tax exemption had expired and were liable to taxation (i.e., those of them who had settled prior to 1862—Crimean Tatars, Nogais, etc. and a minority of Circassians) were counted as "Established", while colonists who still benefited from a tax exemption (as a rule, Circassians arriving in 1864 or later) were regarded as "Muhacir".[63] Contemporary European geographers, such as German-English Ravenstein, French Bianconi and German Kiepert similarly counted Crimean Tatars with Turks in Islam millet.[65][66][67]
Unlike the Circassian colonisation in 1864 and later years, where precise numbers are elusive, the settlement of Crimean Tatars, Nogais, etc. in 1855-1862 has been documented minutely. Out of a total of 34,344 households with 142,852 members (or 4.16 members per household on average) settled along the Danube, a total of 22,360 households with some 93,000 members were given land in kazas that became part of the Principality of Bulgaria.[51]
Adjusting for territorial changes (net loss of 9,422 males, or 18,844 people, for the Est. Muslims and 1,465 males, or 2,930 people, for the Bulgarians), the incorrect entry or carry-over of Muhacir from the '73-74 Census (net loss of 13,825 males, or 27,650 people, for the Est. Muslims and net gain of 33,825 males, or 67,650 people, for the Muhacir), the categorisation of the first wave of refugees as Established (net loss and net gain of 93,000 people for the Established Muslims and Muhacir, respectively), and considering that the Est. Muslims category was also estimated to include some 20,000 Pomaks, mostly living in the region of Lovech.[68] the population living in the future Principality of Bulgaria in 1875 was estimated at 2,085,224 people, of whom 1,187,564 were Bulgarians (56.96%); 546,776 Turks (26.22%); 215,828 Crimean and Circassian Muhacir (10.35%); 49,392 Muslim Romani (2.35%); 30,380 Miscellaneous Christians (1.46%); 20,000 Pomaks (0.96%); 14,606 Christian Romani (0.70%); 9,190 Jews (0.44%); 7,830 Greeks (0.38%); 3,598 Armenians (0.17%).
Of particular note is that fully 10% of the total population, and 25% of all Muslims in the sanjaks, were made up of non-native refugees/colonists, who had arrived only 10 to 20 years before, and whose area of settlement had been carefully picked by the Ottoman authorities in order to: increase Muslim population on the Balkans;[69] cordon off Bulgaria from its neighbours and aid in fighting against a future Russian invasion,[70] act as a counterbalance to Rumelia's Christian population.[71]
In the words of Nusret Pasha, Head of the Silistra Eylaet Colonisation Commission himself, to Hürriyet on 19 October 1868, the Circassians were settled along the Danube in order to serve as live fortification and barrier against Russia.[69]
Ottoman population records (1876) for the future Eastern Rumelia
The other Bulgarian territory to be carved out of the Ottoman Empire was the autonomous province of Eastern Rumelia. It incorporated the Sanjak of İslimye, most of the Sanjak of Filibe (without the Ahi Çelebi/Smolyan and Sultanyeri/Momchilgrad kazas), a smaller part of the Sanjak of Edirne (the Kızılağaç/Elhovo kaza and Manastır/Topolovgrad nahiya), along with parts of the Üsküdar and Çöke nahiyas, again from the Sanjak of Edirne.[43][72]
The following are district-by-district population records from the 1876 Ottoman salname, based on the
As is common for Ottoman statistics, figures refer to males only (figures at the bottom are male-female aggregated estimates):Kaza (District) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Islam millet | % | Rum millet
|
% | Ermeni millet | % | Roman Catholic | % | Yahudi millet
|
% | Muslim Roma | % | Non-Muslim Roma | % | Total | % | |
Filibe/Plovdiv | 35,400 | 28.1 | 80,165 | 63.6 | 380 | 0.3 | 3,462 | 2.7 | 691 | 0.5 | 5,174 | 4.1 | 495 | 0.4 | 125,767 | 100.00 |
Pazarcık/Pazardzhik | 10,805 | 22.8 | 33,395 | 70.5 | 94 | 0.2 | - | 0.0 | 344 | 0.7 | 2,120 | 4.5 | 579 | 1.2 | 47,337 | 100.00 |
Hasköy/Haskovo | 33,323 | 55.0 | 25,503 | 42.1 | 3 | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | 65 | 0.1 | 1,548 | 2.6 | 145 | 0.2 | 60,587 | 100.00 |
Zağra-i Atik/Stara Zagora | 6,677 | 20.0 | 24,857 | 74.5 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | 740 | 2.2 | 989 | 3.0 | 90 | 0.3 | 33,353 | 100.00 |
Kızanlık/Kazanlak | 14,365 | 46.5 | 14,906 | 48.2 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | 219 | 0.7 | 1,384 | 4.5 | 24 | 0.0 | 30,898 | 100.00 |
Çırpan/Chirpan | 5,158 | 23.9 | 15,959 | 73.8 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | 420 | 1.9 | 88 | 0.4 | 21,625 | 100.00 |
- | - | - | ||||||||||||||
- | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | 1.2 | - | 0.0 | |||||||||
Filibe sanjak subtotal | 105,728 | 33.07 | 194,785 | 60.92 | 477 | 0.15 | 3,642 | 1.14 | 2,059 | 0.64 | 11,635 | 3.64 | 1,421 | 0.44 | 319,747 | 100.00 |
İslimye/Sliven | 8,392 | 29.8 | 17,975 | 63.8 | 143 | 0.5 | - | 0.0 | 158 | 0.6 | 596 | 2.1 | 914 | 3.2 | 28,178 | 100.00 |
Yanbolu/Yambol | 4,084 | 30.4 | 8,107 | 60.4 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | 396 | 3.0 | 459 | 3.4 | 377 | 3.2 | 13,423 | 100.00 |
Misivri/Nesebar | 2,182 | 40.0 | 3,118 | 51.6 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | 153 | 2.8 | - | 0.0 | 5,453 | 100.00 |
Karinâbâd/Karnobat | 7,656 | 60.5 | 3,938 | 31.1 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | 250 | 2.0 | 684 | 5.4 | 125 | 1.0 | 12,653 | 100.00 |
Aydos/Aytos | 10,858 | 76.0 | 2,735 | 19.2 | 19 | 0.1 | - | 0.0 | 36 | 0.2 | 584 | 4.1 | 46 | 0.3 | 14,278 | 100.00 |
Zağra-i Cedid/Nova Zagora | 5,310 | 29.4 | 11,777 | 65.2 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | 880 | 4.9 | 103 | 0.6 | 18,070 | 100.00 |
Ahyolu/Pomorie | 1,772 | 33.7 | 3,113 | 59.2 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | 378 | 7.2 | 2 | 0.0 | 5,265 | 100.00 |
Burgas | 4,262 | 22.1 | 14,179 | 73.6 | 46 | 0.2 | - | 0.0 | 4 | 0.0 | 448 | 2.3 | 320 | 1.6 | 19,259 | 100.00 |
İslimye sanjak subtotal | 44,516 | 38.2 | 64,942 | 55.7 | 208 | 0.2 | - | 0.0 | 844 | 0.6 | 4,182 | 3.6 | 1,887 | 1.6 | 116,579 | 100.00 |
Male Population İslimye & Filibe sanjak |
150,244 | 34.43 | 259,727 | 59.53 | 685 | 0.16 | 3,642 | 0.83 | 2,903 | 0.67 | 15,817 | 3.63 | 3,308 | 0.76 | 436,362 | 100.00 |
Total Population3 Islimiye & Filibe sanjak | 300,488 | 34.43 | 519,454 | 59.53 | 1,370 | 0.16 | 7,284 | 0.83 | 5,806 | 0.67 | 31,634 | 3.63 | 6,616 | 0.76 | 872,652 | 100.00 |
Kızılağaç/Elhovo2[74] | 1,425 | 9.6 | 11,489 | 89.0 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 12,914 | 100.00 |
Manastır/Topolovgrad2[74] | 409 | 1.5 | 26,139 | 98.5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 26,548 | 100.00 |
Eastern Rumelia GRAND TOTAL3 | 302,322 | 33.15 | 557,082 | 61.08 | 1,370 | 0.15 | 7,284 | 0.79 | 5,806 | 0.64 | 31,634 | 3.47 | 6,616 | 0.72 | 912,114 | 100.00 |
According to British diplomat Drummond-Wolff, apart from Turks, Islam millet also included 25,000 Muslim Bulgarians, 10,000 Tatars and Nogays and 10,000 Circassians.[75][76] At the same time, British historian R.J. Moore has identified 4,000 male Greeks (or 8,000 in total) in the Sanjak of Filibe,[77][75] and the British consulary service additional 22,000 in the Sanjak of İslimye and 5,693 in the Manastır nahiya,[74] or a total of 35,693 Greeks, who had been counted together with the Orthodox Bulgarians. In turn, all Catholics were Bulgarian Paulicians.
Thus, Eastern Rumelia's total population of 912,114 people prior to the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878) was divided into 528,673 Christian Bulgarians (57.96%), 257,322 Turks (28.21%), 35,693 Greeks (3.91%), 31,634 Muslim Romani (3.47%), 25,000 Pomaks or Muslim Bulgarians (2.74%), 20,000 Muhacir (2.19%), 6,616 Christian Romani (0.73%), 5,806 Jews (0.64%) and 1,370 Armenians (0.15%).
Gallery
-
Bulgarian man and woman ofSofia, from Les costumes populaires de la Turquie en 1873, published under the patronage of the Ottoman Imperial Commission for the 1873 Vienna World's Fair
-
Bulgarian woman ofRoustchouk and Bulgarian men of Vidin, from Les costumes populaires de la Turquie en 1873, published under the patronage of the Ottoman Imperial Commission for the 1873 Vienna World's Fair
-
Bulgarian men of Koyuntepe and Ahı Çelebi and Muslim man of Filibe, from Les costumes populaires de la Turquie en 1873, published under the patronage of the Ottoman Imperial Commission for the 1873 Vienna World's Fair
-
Bulgarian woman of Ahı Çelebi and Greek woman of Haskovo, from Les costumes populaires de la Turquie en 1873, published under the patronage of the Ottoman Imperial Commission for the 1873 Vienna World's Fair
See also
- Ottoman Vardar Macedonia
- Bulgarian Exarchate
- April Uprising of 1876
- Constantinople Conference
- Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878
- Treaty of San Stefano
- Treaty of Berlin (1878)
- Kresna–Razlog uprising
- Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising
Footnotes
- ^ C. M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece: A Short History, p. 101.
- ^ Ozel, Oktay (1992). "Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's 'Land Reform' Revised". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (42): 234.
- ^ Godisnjak. Drustvo Istoricara Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. 1950. p. 174. Archived from the original on 18 August 2020. Retrieved 27 June 2019.
Санџак Софија Овај је санџак основан око г. 1393.
- OCLC 987671521.
- ISBN 0521343151.
- ISBN 978-1-4617-3176-4.
- ISBN 978-954-523-103-2)
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - ISBN 978-954-523-103-2)
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - ^ Kuran, Timur; Lustig, Scott (2010). "Judicial Biases in the Ottoman Empire" (PDF). pp. 3, 22.
- ISBN 978-1-4381-1025-7. Retrieved 15 April 2016.
- ISBN 978-0-06-019840-4.
- ISBN 978-0-226-09801-2.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-522151-0.
- ^ a b c The preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith By Sir Thomas Walker Arnold, pg. 135-144
- ^ "Eastern Orthodox Church". BBC. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
- ISBN 978-1-84854-647-9. Retrieved 2020-06-24.
- ISBN 978-1-4422-4180-0.
- ISBN 978-0-87471-796-9.
- ^ Legrand, Emile (1885). "Bibliographie hellénique".
- ^ "The History of Turkish-Occupied Greece (Four volumes)".
- ^ De Turcarum moribus epitome, Bartholomaeo Georgieviz, peregrino, autore. apud J. Tornaesium. 1558.
- ^ Vakalopoulos, Apostolos E. (1961). "Istoria tou neou ellenismou: Tourkokratia 1453-1669. Oi agones gia ten piste kai ten eleytheria".
- ^ Vakalopoulos, Apostolos E. (1974). "Istoria tou neou ellenismou".
- ^ a b Barkan, Ömer Lutfi (1953–54), Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler [Population Transfers as a Method of Settlement and Colonisation in the Ottoman Empire], pp. 211–212
- ^ Barkan, Ömer Lutfi (1951–52), Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler [Population Transfers as a Method of Settlement and Colonisation in the Ottoman Empire], pp. 69–76
- ^ Barkan, Ömer Lutfi (1953–54), Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler [Population Transfers as a Method of Settlement and Colonisation in the Ottoman Empire], pp. 209–211
- ^ Barkan, Ömer Lutfi (1953–54), Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler [Population Transfers as a Method of Settlement and Colonisation in the Ottoman Empire], p. 225
- ^ Barkan, Ömer Lutfi (1951–52), Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler [Population Transfers as a Method of Settlement and Colonisation in the Ottoman Empire], p. 63
- ^ Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı (1949), Osmanlı tarihi. Anadolu Selçukluları ve Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Bir Mukaddime İle Bir Mukaddime İle Osmanlı Devleti'nin Kuruluşundan İstanbul'un Fethine Kadar [From the Foundation of the Ottoman State to the Conquest of Istanbul with an Introduction concerning Seljuks of Anatolia and the Beyliks of Anatolia], vol. 1, İstanbul: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, p. 181
- ^ Eminov 1987, p. 289
- .
- ISBN 978-954-523-103-2)
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - ^ Chmiel, Agata (2012). "Religious and Demographic Development in the South-Western Rhodopes in the Second Half of the Fifteenth Century" (PDF). Ankara. pp. 42–43, 45, 77–78, 87.
- ^ Kiel, Machiel (1998), Разпространението на исляма в българското село през Османската епоха (XV-XVIII век). Във: Мюсюлманската култура по българските земи. Изследвания [The Spread of Islam in Bulgarian Rural Areas in the Ottoman Period (15th–18th Centuries). In: Islamic Culture in the Bulgarian Lands. Studies], Sofia, p. 75
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ a b c Boykov, Grigor (2016). "The Human Cost of Warfare: Population Loss During the Ottoman Conquest and the Demographic History of Bulgaria in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Era". In Schmitt, Oliver Jens (ed.). The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. pp. 134, 143, 147.
- ISBN 963-9241-83-0.
- ^ Hildo Bos; Jim Forest, eds. (1999). For the Peace from Above: an Orthodox Resource Book on War, Peace and Nationalism. Syndesmos.
- ^ From Rum Millet to Greek and Bulgarian Nations: Religious and National Debates in the Borderlands of the Ottoman Empire, 1870–1913, Theodora Dragostinova, Ohio State University, Columbus.
- ISBN 0521616379, p. 74.
- ^ a b c d Karpat, K.H. (1985). Ottoman population, 1830-1914: demographic and social characteristics. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Pres. pp. 109–115.
- ^ a b c d e f Аркадиев, Димитър. "ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ В БРОЯ НА НАСЕЛЕНИЕТО ПО БЪЛГАРСКИТЕ ЗЕМИ В СЪСТАВА НА ОСМАНСКАТА ИМПЕРИЯ]" [CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF THE POPULATION OF THE BULGARIAN LANDS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE] (in Bulgarian). National Statistical Institute. pp. 19–21. Archived from the original on 2 February 2017.
- ^ a b c d e f Palairet, Michael (1997), The Balkan Economies c. 1800-1914: Evolution without Development, New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 25
- ^ .
- ^ a b "Balkan ethnic maps - New Map 13".
- ^ .
- ^ "Danube Official Gazette, Year III". Дунав, Г. III (in Bulgarian). 7 May 1867.
- .
- .
- ^ Pinson, Mark (1973). "Ottoman Colonization of Crimean Tatars in Bulgaria". Turk Tarihi Kongresi. 2: 1047.
- ^ Kanitz, Felix (1875), 1875–1879: Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan [Danube Bulgaria and the Balkans] (in German), vol. 1, Leipzig, H. Fries, p. 313
- ^ a b c ÇETİNKAYA, Mehmet (August 2022). "Migrations From the Crimea and Caucasus to the Balkans 1860 1865". Migrations from the Crimea and Caucasus to the Balkans (1860-1865): 70, 91, 146.
- ^ Karpat, K.H. (1985). Ottoman population, 1830-1914: demographic and social characteristics. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press. p. 70.
The assessment of fertility rates is an absolute necessity for the understanding of the growth rate of the Ottoman population. It is generally assumed that during the first thirty years of the nineteenth century the Ottoman population decreased, beginning to increase again after 1850. This assumption is one-sided and only partly true, for it ignores the differences in growth rates between Muslim and non-Muslim groups. The non-Muslim population actually grew at a fairly fast rate after the 1830s—probably 2 percent annually; the Muslim population declined or remained the same in number. There are indications, however, that fertility rates among the Muslims began to increase after 1850. The causes of the disproportionate fertility rates among the two groups are to be found in the special economic and social conditions which favoured non-Muslims and penalized the Muslims, especially Turks. Male Turks spent their peak reproductive years in military service and were unable to marry and settle down to take advantage of economic opportunities. Then, when in the nineteenth century the Ottoman state was exposed to the influence of the European capitalist economy and to intensified internal and international trade, several non-Muslim groups became the early recipients of the economic benefits—and the promoters as well—of the new economic system.
- ^ Karpat, K.H. (1985). Ottoman population, 1830-1914: demographic and social characteristics. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press. p. 70.
The percentage of the Muslim population in the Rumili increased substantially after 1860. There is no question that this increase resulted from the immigration of the Tatars and Circassians. The immigration not only made up for the heavy losses suffered in the various wars fought since 1812 but also increased the proportion of Muslims in the area.
- .
Ancak, en dikkat çekici nokta, Kuyûd-ı Atîk'de yazılmamış olan muhacirlerin ilave edilmiş olmasına rağmen Tahrir-i Cedid'deki Müslim-Gayrimüslim nüfus yüzdesi (%42,22-%57,78) ile Kuyûd-ı Atîk'deki nüfus yüzdelerinin (%40,51-%59,49) birbirine yakın oluşudur. Bu durum, Bulgarlarda ve Gayrimüslim nüfus genelinde doğurganlık oranının ve nüfus artış hızının Türk ve diğer Müslüman unsurlardan daha yüksek olduğunu; buna rağmen vilâyette iskân edilen Kırım ve Kafkas muhacirleri sayesinde nüfus yüzdelerinin korunduğu gibi, Müslüman nüfus oranının bir miktar arttığını göstermektedir. 1859-1860 verilerine bakıldığında bu husus daha net olarak anlaşılmaktadır.
[However, what is most striking is that the ratio between Muslim and Non-Muslims in the 1875 Salname (42.22% vs. 57.78%) and the 1865 Kuyûd-i Atik population registry (including Tulça) (40.51% vs. 59.49%) is close to each other, even though a number of immigrants had not been included in the 1865 registry. This indicates that the fertility rate and population growth rate among Bulgarians and other non-Muslim population is higher than among Turks and other Muslims. Despite this, the relative ratio of the population is preserved thanks to the Crimean and Caucasian immigrants settled in the province, and the ratio of Muslims has even increased slightly. Looking at the data of 1859-1860, this issue is understood more clearly.] - .
Demografik hareketliliğin tespiti ve Kırım ve Kafkas muhacirlerinin etkisinin anlaşılabilmesi için 1859–1860 icmal nüfus verileri esas alınmalıdır... Buna göre, Kırım muhacirlerinin yoğun olarak iskân edildikleri Mecidiye ile Sünne sancakları yazılmadığı halde, 1859–1860'ta bölgede 284.934 Müslüman ve 536.748 Gayrimüslim nüfus kaydedilmiş olduğunu hatırlatmalıyız. 1859–1860'tan 1874'e kadar Niş Sancağı hariç bölgedeki Müslüman nüfus, %84,23 (220.276 kişi) artışla 261.522'den 481.798'e; Gayrimüslim nüfus %53,29 (229.188 kişi) artışla 430.065'den 659.253'e ve toplam nüfus ise %65,02 artışla 691.587'den 1.141.051'e yükselmiştir. Bu süreçte Müslüman nüfus oranı %37,81'den %42,22'ye çıkarken, Gayrimüslim nüfus oranı %62,19'dan %57,88'e gerilemiştir. Dolayısıyla 1859–1860 ile 1874 yılları arasında kadınlarla birlikte bölgedeki nüfus 440.552'si Müslüman ve 458.376'sı Gayrimüslim olmak üzere 898.928 kişi artmıştır. Bu verilere göre, Niş Sancağı dışında Tuna bölgesinde iskân edilen Kırım ve Kafkas muhacirleri, Müslüman nüfustaki doğal nüfus artışı da göz önünde bulundurularak söz konusu 440.552 Müslüman nüfus içinde aranmalıdır.
[In order to determine demographic mobility and understand the effect of Crimean and Caucasian immigration, we should use the summary population data from 1859-1860 as a basis... And we must keep in mind that even though the Silistra and Mecidiye kazas were heavily settled, they had not been included in the results. In the period from 1859-1860 to 1874, the Muslim population of the region, apart from the Nis Sanjak, went up from 261,522 to 481,798 males, an increase of 84.23% (220,276 males); while the non-Muslim population went up from 430,065 to 659,253 males, or an increase of 53.29% (229,188 males), which led to an increase in the total population from 691,587 to 1,141,051, or 65.02%. In the process, the percentage of Muslims increased from 37.81% to 42.22%, while non-Muslims decreased from 62.19% to 57.88%. Therefore, between 1859-1860 and 1874, the male/female-aggregated population of the region increased by 898,928 people, of whom 440,552 were Muslims and 458,376 were non-Muslims. According to this data, the Crimean and Caucasian immigrants who were settled in the Danube vilayet, apart from the Nis Sanjak, should be sought among these 440,552 Muslims, while taking into account the natural population growth in the Muslim population] - ^ .
- ^ .
- ^ "Up until the Treaty of Berlin, the Dobruca region, which the Muslim population at the center of this study inhabited, consisted of the entire sancak (district) of Tulça (with the kazas of Babadağı, Hırşova, Sünne, Köstence, Maçin, and Mecidiye) and one of the four kazas of the sancak of Varna (Mankalya)." For more see: Catalina Hunt (2015) Changing Identities at the Fringes of the Late Ottoman Empire: Dobruja Muslims, p. 33, url: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1429644189&disposition=inline Archived 2023-05-03 at the Wayback Machine.
- .
- ^ a b OSMANİ, Mead (28 May 2018). "Arşiv belgelerine göre Niş Sancaği (1839-1878)" [Sanjak of Niš Archives (1839-1878)] (PDF) (in Turkish). p. 55.
- ^ Gülbudak, Fatih. "NİŞ SANCAĞI" [The Sanjak of Niş] (in Turkish). p. 13.
- ^ .
- ^ .
Ancak, Tuna Vilâyeti'nde meskûn muhacir sayısının –Niş Sancağı hariç– yalnızca 64.398 (kadınlarla birlikte 128.796) olarak gösterilmesi ilk bakışta şaşırtıcıdır. Çünkü bu sayı daha 1861-1862'de Osmanlı makamları tarafından tespit edilmiş olan muhacir sayısının dahi oldukça gerisindedir. Kanaatimize göre buradaki problem de sayım sonuçlarından ziyade terminoloji ile ilgilidir ve Tahrir-i Cedid sonuçlarında aktarılan ahâli-i kadîme nüfusu, Kırım ve Kafkas muhacirlerinin bölgede iskânından önceki Türk ve diğer Müslüman unsurların sayısını değil, onlarla birlikte on yıllık vergi muafiyeti süresinin dolmasından sonra ahali-i kadîme sayılan Kırım muhacirlerini de ihtiva etmektedir. Şöyle ki, Midhat Paşa'nın, 1271 senesinde Tulça Sancağı'nda (Mecidiye'de) iskân edilmiş olan Kırım muhacirlerinin 1281 sonunda muafiyet sürelerinin dolacak olması ve bunlardan 1282 Mart'ından itibaren öşür ve vergi alınacak olması sebebiyle muhacirlere tarh ve tevzi edilecek verginin önceden kararlaştırılması için 2 Eylül 1865'de Sadaret'e başvurması üzerine, Tulça Sancağı'nda meskûn muhacirlerin 1 Mart 1282'de (13 Mart 1866), "mazhar oldukları müddet-i muafiyet tekmil olarak kendileri artık ahali-i kadîme sırasına geçmiş ve bu cihetle emsâli misillû bunların dahi hal ve iktidarları gözetilerek virgülerinin tarh ve tevzii zamanı gelmiş olduğuna" karar verilmiştir. Keza, Vidin'e bağlı Adliye kazasında Rahoviçe-i Kebir köyünde meskûn Kırım muhacirlerinin de 1873'de köylerine muhacir aşarı malından cami yapılmasını talep etmeleri üzerine, liva muhacir komisyonu, muafiyet müddetlerinin 1287 senesi sonunda (12 Mart 1872) bitmesi hasebiyle "ahali-i kadîme hükmüne girdikleri" için kendilerine muhacir aşarından para aktarılamayacağına hükmetmiştir. Ayrıca, yukarıda da belirtildiği üzere on yıllık vergi muafiyeti dolan muhacirler "ahali-i kadîme misillû" vergilendirilmişlerdir. Bu örnekler vergi muafiyeti süresi dolan Kırım muhacirlerinin ahali-i kadîme sınıfına geçtiklerini göstermektedir. Bu konuda başka bir örnek de şudur: Vidin Sancağı köylerinde Tahrir-i Cedid sonuçlarını yansıtan ve aşağıda ele alınacak olan bir cetvelde Müslüman unsurlar, İslam milleti (11.048) ve Aşâir (Çerkez) (6.522) şeklinde kaydedilmişlerdir. Cetvelde Çerkez muhacirlerin vergi muafiyetlerinin dolmadığı not edilmiştir. Ancak, Tatar ve Nogay muhacirlerden bahis yoktur.213 Burada da Kırım muhacirlerinin, Kuyûd-u Atîk'de olduğu gibi, İslam milleti içinde kaydedildikleri anlaşılmaktadır. Dolayısıyla Tahrir-i Cedid'de aktarılan muhacir sayısı 1863–1864'de gelen ve muhacir statüsü devam eden Çerkez muhacirleri gösteriyor olmalıdır.214 1292 Salnâmesinde de eksik de olsa yalnızca Çerkez muhacirlerden söz edilmesi bu ihtimali güçlendirmektedir.
[However, it is surprising to see that the number of settled Muhacir in the Danube Vilayet is only 64,398 (128,796, including the women)—excluding the Nis Sanjak. Because this number is far below even the number of Muhacir determined by the Ottoman authorities in 1861-1862. In our opinion, the problem here is related to terminology rather than census results, and the number of "Established Muslims" reported in the Tahrir-i Cedid results does not represent the number of Turks and other Muslims established in the vilayet prior to the settlement of the Crimean and Caucasian Muhacir, but the population whose ten-year tax exemption period had expired. The count therefore also includes Crimean settlers, who are considered to be “established”. Midhat Pasha namely stated that the tax that is levied and distributed among Muhacir had been paid in advance because the exemption period of the Crimean Muhacir settled in the Tulça Sanjak (Mecidiye) in 1271 would expire at the end of 1281 and that they would be liable to tithe collection and taxation from March 1282…. Likewise, when the Crimean settlers, residing in the village of Rahovice-i Kebir in the Adliye district of Vidin, demanded that a mosque be built in their village using the tithe of the Muhacir in 1873, the vilayet's colonisation commission decided that the exemption period had expired at the end of 1287 (12 March 1872). They ruled that the money from the tithe of the Muhacir could not be allocated to them, since they had entered the group of “Established Muslims”. In addition, as mentioned above, Muhacir whose ten-year tax exemption has expired were taxed as “Established Muslims”. These examples show that Crimean settlers, whose tax exemption period has expired, had passed into the “Established Muslims” group. Another example in this regard is, as follows: In a table that reflects the results of Tahrir-i Cedid in the villages of Vidin Sanjak, which will be discussed below, the Muslims were recorded as “Established” (11,048) and “Muhacir” (Circassian) (6,522). It is noted in the chart that the tax exemptions of the Circassian Muhacir have not expired. However, there is no mention of Tatar and Nogay settlers. Therefore, the number of settlers (Muhacir) quoted in Tahrir-i Cedid must indicate Circassian immigrants who came in 1863-1864 and whose Muhacir status continues.] - ^ a b Аркадиев, Димитър. "ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ В БРОЯ НА НАСЕЛЕНИЕТО ПО БЪЛГАРСКИТЕ ЗЕМИ В СЪСТАВА НА ОСМАНСКАТА ИМПЕРИЯ]" [CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF THE POPULATION OF THE BULGARIAN LANDS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE] (in Bulgarian). National Statistical Institute. pp. 25–26. Archived from the original on 2 February 2017.
- ^ Ravenstein, Ernst (October 1876). "Distribution of the Population in the Part of Europe Overrun by Turks". The Geographical Magazine. 3: 259–261.
- ^ Bianconi, F (1877), Ethnographie et statistique de la Turquie d'Europe et de la Grèce [Ethnography and Statistics of Turkey in Europe as well as Greece], pp. 50–51
- ^ Kiepert, Heinrich (20 May 1878). "X". Das Ausland. 20: 393–416.
- ^ Мошин, А. (1877) Придунайская Болгария (Дунайский вилает). Статистико-экономический очерк. В: Славянский сборник, т. ІІ. Санкт Петербург,
- ^ a b ÇETİNKAYA, Mehmet (August 2022). "Migrations From the Crimea and Caucasus to the Balkans 1860 1865". Migrations from the Crimea and Caucasus to the Balkans (1860-1865): 107.
- ^ Pinson, Mark (1971). "Ottoman Colonization of the Circassians in Rumili After the Crimean War". Études Balkaniques (3): 71–75.
- ^ Aydemir, İzzet (1988). Göç: Kuzey Kafkasya'dan Göç Tarihi (in Turkish). Ankara: Gelişim Matbaası. p. 52.
- ^ "Visualizations | Koç Üniversitesi".
- ^ a b c Koyuncu, Aşkın (1 December 2013). "1877-1878 Osmanlı-Rus Harbi Öncesinde Şarkî Rumeli Nüfusu" [The Population of Eastern Rumelia Before the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War]. Avrasya Etüdleri (in Turkish). 19 (44): 191.
- ^ a b c d e Köse, Muhammed. "İngiltere Konsolosluk Raporlarında 1878 Yılında Türkiye Avrupa'sının Demografi k Yapısı" [Demographic Structure of Turkey in Europe in 1878 in British Consular Reports*] (PDF) (in Turkish). pp. 158, 161.
- ^ a b c Demeter, Gabor. "Ethnic maps as political advertisements and instruments of symbolic nation-building and their role in influencing decision-making from Berlin (1877-1881), to Bucharest (1913)". p. 28.
- ^ Karpat, K.H. (1985). Ottoman population, 1830-1914: demographic and social characteristics. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press.
- ^ More, R.J., Under the Balkans. Notes of a visit to the district of Philippopolis in 1876. London, 1877.
References
- Arkadiev, Dimitar. "ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ В БРОЯ НА НАСЕЛЕНИЕТО ПО БЪЛГАРСКИТЕ ЗЕМИ В СЪСТАВА НА ОСМАНСКАТА ИМПЕРИЯ]" [CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF THE POPULATION OF THE BULGARIAN LANDS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE] (in Bulgarian). National Statistical Institute. Archived from the original on 2 February 2017.
- Barkan, Ömer Lutfi (1951–52), Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler [Population Transfers as a Method of Settlement and Colonisation in the Ottoman Empire]
- Barkan, Ömer Lutfi (1953–54), Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler [Population Transfers as a Method of Settlement and Colonisation in the Ottoman Empire]
- Boykov, Grigor (2016). "The Human Cost of Warfare: Population Loss During the Ottoman Conquest and the Demographic History of Bulgaria in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Era". In Schmitt, Oliver Jens (ed.). The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
- Clarence-Smith, W.G. (2006). Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-522151-0.
- Çetinkaya, Mehmet (August 2022), "Migrations From the Crimea and Caucasus to the Balkans 1860-1865", Migrations from the Crimea and Caucasus to the Balkans (1860-1865)
- Daskalov, Rumen (2004). The Making of a Nation in the Balkans: Historiography of the Bulgarian Revival. Central European University Press. ISBN 963-9241-83-0.
- İnalcık, Halil (1994). The Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1600. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521343151.
- Karpat, K.H. (1985). Ottoman Population, 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Pres.
- Koyuncu, Aşkın (January 2014). "Tuna Vilâyeti'nde Nüfus Ve Demografi (1864-1877)" [Population and Demography of the Danube Vilayet (1864-1877)]. Turkish Studies - International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic (in Turkish). 9 (4): 675. .
- Koyuncu, Aşkın (1 December 2013). "1877-1878 Osmanlı-Rus Harbi Öncesinde Şarkî Rumeli Nüfusu" [The Population of Eastern Rumelia Before the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War] (in Turkish).
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - Muchinov, Ventsislav (September 2016). "Ottoman Policies on Circassian Refugees in the Danube Vilayet in the 1860s and 1870s". Journal of Caucasian Studies (JOCAS). 2 (3). .
- Mansel, Phillip (15 April 1998). Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0312187084.
- Papoulia, Basilike (1965). Ursprung und Wesen der " Knabenlese " im osmanischen Reich [Origin and Nature of the "Boy Harvest" in the Ottoman Empire].
- Radushev, Evgeni (2008). Christianity and Islam in the Western Rhodope Mountains and the Valley of the Mesta River from the 1500s to the 1730s (in Bulgarian). Sofia. ISBN 978-954-523-103-2.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - Sharkey, Heather (2017). A History of Muslims, Christians and Jews in the Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139028455.
- Trankova, Dimana; Georgieff, Anthony; Matanov, Hristo (2012). Пътеводител за Османска България [A Guide to Ottoman Bulgaria]. Sofia. ISBN 9789549230666.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - "DEVŞİRME USULÜ - ACEMİ OĞLANLAR OCAĞI MÜESSESESİ" (in Turkish). Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2006-09-04.
- "Devsirme". Encyclopedia of the Orient. 11 February 2022.