Can It Happen?: Islam Serbia

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.

I don't think it could reach Bosnian or Albanian levels, tough as the first distinguished itself already with a rather heterodoxal Christianism, and that the Christian elites of Albania massibly fled to Italy.
But having 1/3 of Serbians converting, if not the half seems doable.
 
A good way to further it more would be not having the Ottomans actively discouraging conversion and refounding/supporting Orthodox institutions and positions.
 
Very hard to pull off, maybe not outright impossible but very hard.

With most of the indigenous Balkanites that converted to Islam en masse, we can usually spot a...special circumstance that may have very well contributed to their unusually quick and widespread conversion.
Medieval Bosnia, for example, harbored a Christian heresy - Bogomilism - that alienated many of them from their Catholic and Orthodox neighbors, and by many accounts it was this disgruntled religious group that formed the core of the ottomanized Bosniaks.
With the Gorani, there is also a relevant issue, although this one is on slightly shaky grounds: allegedly, several Arabic families were allowed to settle in a village in the Gora region on the condition that they don't create any trouble...around 1250, when Gora was part of the Christian Kingdom of Serbia and the Ottomans were nowhere in sight. If this theory isn't fake, it would mean that the Gorani got to live alongside a few Muslims in peace for a good 100 years prior to the Turkish invasion, making them much more open to conversion to Islam.

The core and overwhelming majority of the Serbian population have no such special circumstance. If Ottoman rule was made either
A) Incredibly tolerant, or
B) Incredibly oppressive
, that could help, but not much. In a tolerant society that grants Christians significant rights, there would be little incentive to convert, and an incredibly oppressive Ottoman rule would alienate Serbs and other Christians too much to allow for anything more than a trickle of opportunistic conversion. I actually think Ottoman rule as it was OTL (harsh and excessively unfair towards Christians, but not rabidly jihadistic or anything like that) was probably the best bet for spreading Islam, and it still failed to do so in Serbia.

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.

IMO the exact result of the Battle of Blackbird's Field can be a crushing defeat, and Serbia would still (temporarily) rise in the inevitable power vacuum/anarchy when Tamerlane invades the Ottoman Empire.

But weakening Serbian identity, or at least its connection with mainstream Christianity, could help materialize the thread title.

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. In this scenario, when the Ottomans arrive and eventually conquer Serbia, they will find a population largely hostile to mainstream Christianity, and, as a consequence, much more open to alternatives...including Islam.
 
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.
 
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.

I think I see your point.

But the first serious measures taken against the Bogomils were in 1186. At the moment, Serbia was an independent state, and rapidly expanding to boot. The lack of anti-Bogomilist action may even help Serbia expand more quickly for the first few years, since that frees up the armies who were in OTL busy capturing chief heretic leaders around 1186.

Basically, I think that Bogomilism would need time to take root and do serious damage to Serbia. We'd still have a period of strengthening and consolidation within a single Serbian state which would forge/preserve a common Serbian ethnic identity. Sure, this state would be weaker than OTL, but it would still probably be a single, more or less distinct Serbian state.

Bogomilism is troublesome in two different ways, with its anti-materialist rhetoric, and with how it generates internal strife and conflicts with neighbors, but it wouldn't spread immediately and it wouldn't screw everything up (immediately) either.
 
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.
 
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 was talking about in the Northern Balkans, not everywhere, where the Ottoman authorities discouraged it to maintian the tax on Christians.
 

Avskygod0

Banned
serbs are quite infamous for stubborn-ness. It took us 6 centuries to accept christianity, and it still has tons of pagan elements to this day
 
I was talking about in the Northern Balkans, not everywhere, where the Ottoman authorities discouraged it to maintian the tax on Christians.
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.
 

Mookie

Banned
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.

Have the Ottomans not prevent missionary work by muslims and there you go. OTL Ottomans killed most of people who attempted to do so, except sufi's who infiltrated the establishment, but converted people slowly and prefered to convert the important persons.

And yes, Ottomans actively discouraged conversion. Look to Spain to see what represion and such actions lead to.
How do you forcefully convert someone to Islam if I may know?
 
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.
 

Mookie

Banned
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.


His mother was also from family of Subic which gave him claims on Subic lands.
And true, there are no evidence of that. But you misunderstand Balkan logic. Christian = Serb or Croat in Serbo-Croat mind.
Ignoring the fact that entire Europe was christian in middle ages.
 
Top