[endisukaj]

> In fact, "Balkans" in particular is an extremely ambiguous linguistic term and can mean so many different things to so many people.

Not really, Balkan countries are well-defined and have been so for over a century now. It's basically European countries that were under the Ottoman Empire:

Greece, Albania, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia. One could also throw Slovenia in there but historically speaking, they have always been pretty different from other Balkan-folk.

[truantbuick]

"There is not universal agreement on the region’s components." [1]

"It can be difficult to define exactly which countries are included in the Balkan States. It is a name that has both geographic and political definitions, with some of the countries crossing what scholars consider the 'boundaries' of the Balkans." [2]

Almost the entire wikipedia article is dedicated to explaining the various definitions of it and how it is a problematic term. [3]

[1] https://www.britannica.com/place/Balkans

[2] https://www.thoughtco.com/where-are-the-balkan-states-407024...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans

[r3bl]

I'm from Bosnia, which is in the Balkans by every definition of the term. As for the rest of our neighbors, it's a mixed bag.

According to certain definitions, only the coast of Croatia is in the Balkans (without Istria peninsula). Vojvodina (the northern region of Serbia) should definitely not be in the Balkans. Slovenia definitely not. Romania? I can't tell without looking up the definitions.

See the problem?

[velcro]

Just for the sake of accuracy - Croatia was never "under" the Ottoman Empire. That was Herzegovina - so technically today's Bosnia.

Also not sure what you mean by Slovenia being historically different - slavs, similar language, part of austro-hungarian empire, part of Yugoslavia, etc etc