Young man, even rushed the hell out, this post is far better from your narcisist&confused manifestations before.
It's rushed because I have stuff to do and if you want to descend to the level of personal attacks you should know that I can sink pretty damn deep.
My reaction was about Sa'id obsession about islamisation Romania, when states as Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia had more chances to be islamised.
Sa'id talked about a "significant portion". Fact is, a significant portion of Bulgarians and Greeks did convert, as did a larger number of Serbo-Croats (we call the descendants of those converts Bosniaks) and a majority of Albanians. Romanians did not convert for the simple reason that the Ottomans never extended direct control over Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania (or over Ragusa and the west Georgian states). Even if all the Bulgarians had converted, this would not have made any difference north of the Danube - we were outside the process altogether.
And if you're as seasoned and experienced as you try to imply you are (though your first personal message to me gives cause for doubt) then you should know why gratuitously accusing someone of having an obsession is beneath intelligent debate.
About the resistance against otomans, yes, serbians and hungarians resisted to, but not like vallachians. Not because vallachians would been more brave, but because of their location(I wished to take advantage of this, but...thanks!). Yes, I think Vlad and Stefan contributed to otomans decission, and was not futile. Yes, latter otomans could inforced upon us harsher policies, but they already took the decission not to islanise...not only Romania, but either Serbia, Bulgaria. The so called "tax free" islamisation, is ilogic, because turks need lot of taxes. Yes, Vlad impaled islamic population-if others becomed victims, this was because he considered them a threat.
Neverthanless, if would been such easy to trasform vallachian states into pachalacs, turks would did it. No obedient ruller, or phanariot would prevented rebelions. Rebelions would been very costly for otomans, because the distance from Istambul, mountaineous terrain, proximity of christian kingdoom which would provided help to vallachians. I'd say, even would been very risky, for integrity of Otoman Empire itself. Michael the Brave rebellion made turks from Istambul to shaver for their lifes. Otoman Empire was far from a very stable rock-temple- it was more likely a cards-castle building. When a serious force treaten it, it could colapse any time.
Good lord, the time I'll have to waste here!
The Ottoman Empire was tough. I mean, really tough. That's the historical record talking. A house of cards doesn't stretch from the gates of Vienna to the Bab-el-Mandeb. It was Europe's strongest power while stagnating and its decline stretched for over 2 centuries. Michael, who wouldn't have lived to see that decline under any conditions, rebelled against the Porte at a time when it was engaged in war against Austria and having to keep an eye out for Poland-Lithuania and Persia. And he still needed to have Transylvania and Moldavia by his side, which explains his later actions. The Turks almost did turn Wallachia into a province in 1595 and would've done it in 1600 if not for the fact that it was occupied by the Poles, who'd overthrown him there and whose neutrality was needed.
You'd know this if you read some Ottoman history. You'd also know that quite a lot of Serbian, Albanian and Greek highlanders were defying Ottoman power even at its height - one such group created Montenegro. They too had good defensive terrain, distance from Constantinople and proximity to Christian powers. The Ottoman response was to not care all that much. Whatever resistance would form in the mountains of Bucegi or Vrancea or Ceahlau would be a minor nuissance. The Turks would have the agricultural land, the towns, the fortresses, and the trade route into Poland, which would be more than enough to offset the cost of defending against the highlanders.
You'd also know that the Ottoman Empire, like all Islamic states back then, had different taxes for Muslims and non-Muslims - it was a matter of religious law, not conversion policy. And that this difference, along with the prospect of higher office and membership in the priviledged group, led many to convert, including Serbs and Bulgarians, but it was a gradual process and some regions (the Rhodopes, Crete, Bosnia, the Sandzak, central Albania, Kosovo) experienced it more than others.
I'm not a Frenchman by any stretch - indeed, my English is better than my French.