Inspired by that particular Video..
Can Serbia be-converted to Islam,or even-"Ottomanized"?
Can Serbia be-converted to Islam,or even-"Ottomanized"?
Bosnia.
Filler
I think it was quite ottomanized OTL : the serbian culture knew an important turkish influence and not that similar to medieval Serbia.
In the same line of idea, there were islamic conversion outside Bosnia and Albania but as they were minoritary, they were associated to Turks (especially in Greece and Bulgaria), Serbia not making exception, with the Gorani.
Now for larger if not majoritary conversion to happen, I think you'll need a weaker Serbian identity before the conquest, possibly an harsher Battle of Blackbird's Field that would crush serbian polities as the despotate. Without a clear structure, the Serbs being more divided could have political conversions as a local leader converts himself with his followers...well, following.
Maybe, just maybe, something can be achieved if we recreate the conditions of Medieval Bosnia as much as possible all over the Serbian lands. Something along the lines of: The Serbian ruler does not nip the Bogomilist heresy in Serbia in the bud a little before 1200. Instead, the Zoupans and Kings of Serbia do absolutely nothing while the heresy spreads and engulfs much of the population.
Couldn't that risk to prevent the rise of Serbia as a thing in first place? While bogomilism wasn't probably as much dominant in Bosnia (while structurally influencing the later conversion), it was by its "anti-materialism" and opposition to demiurge a pain for growth of temporal policies.
It allows for relativly strong rulers, but would it be only for inner legitimisation or external acknowledgment, bogomilism was an obstacle.
My point being : breaking Serbia before it appears as a strong and distinct state would certainly allow for more conversions in the aera, but I'm not sure we could call it "Serbian", far less "Serbia" the aera concerned.
Inspired by that particular Video..
Can Serbia be-converted to Islam,or even-"Ottomanized"?
Does your definition of "actively discouraging" includes treating Christians as second class subjects, forcefully islamisizing children to turn them into loyal Ottoman soldiers and allowing criminals to avoid punishment by conversion? Otherwise, the above statement is completely ridiculous.A good way to further it more would be not having the Ottomans actively discouraging conversion and refounding/supporting Orthodox institutions and positions.
Does your definition of "actively discouraging" includes treating Christians as second class subjects, forcefully islamisizing children to turn them into loyal Ottoman soldiers and allowing criminals to avoid punishment by conversion? Otherwise, the above statement is completely ridiculous.
Incidentally, the Orthodox church, which derived much of its income by taxing the flock (often heavily) is believed to have contributed to conversions, so its elimination may have the opposite effect.
What do you mean under Northern Balkans? Because Bosnia certainly fits in that category. And how exactly was this discouragement carried out? The Ottomans certainly didn't prohibit conversions, nor did they prevent the activity of prolesityzing Sufi orders (which are linked with conversions in Northeastern Bulgaria, which can also be considered part of the Northern Balkans). And as I explained, the taxes were a major factor in encouraging conversions.I was talking about in the Northern Balkans, not everywhere, where the Ottoman authorities discouraged it to maintian the tax on Christians.
Does your definition of "actively discouraging" includes treating Christians as second class subjects, forcefully islamisizing children to turn them into loyal Ottoman soldiers and allowing criminals to avoid punishment by conversion? Otherwise, the above statement is completely ridiculous.
Incidentally, the Orthodox church, which derived much of its income by taxing the flock (often heavily) is believed to have contributed to conversions, so its elimination may have the opposite effect.
I can't stress this enough, Medieval Bosnians /= Serbs, despite the decades of mind-numbing pseudo-historical nationalist propaganda printed from Belgrade.
Bosnia was a distinct political entity since at least the 12th century and there is absolutely no written evidence of Serb/Serbian overlordship or settlement in Bosnia after the death of Duke Stephen of Bosnia in 1101. During his reign, Bosnia was never incorporated into an integrated state of Duklja (D(i)oclea) under King Constantine Bodin. From the 12th century onward, Bosnia is completely detached from Duklja/Rascia/Serbia. From then on, Bosnia becomes a Hungarian vassal, but as a separate political entity under its own rulers, called bans (sometimes translated as "viceroy", the first of which was Ban Borić), who were (largely nominal) vassals to the Hungarian-Croatian king.
A lot of confusion also seems to stem from the fact that Tvrtko I crowned himself King of Bosnia and Serbia (Raška/Rascia). Tvrtko was the sole remaining heir of the sacronist House of Nemanjić through his paternal grandmother Elizabeth of Serbia and Tvrtko ruled numerous lands which included parts of the Nemanjić domains, which further legitimized his claim.