There is a lot of anti-Islamic ultra-nationalism in the popular histories, that is for sure. I mean, when you have to invent a whole grammatically atrocious new word (suzerainty) that didn't exist before to describe the political situation in the Balkans, you realise how tenuous are many of the claims regarding Ottoman "rule" there. Similarly with the idea of "vassalage" and the even more tenuous "tributary status" that I have also seen sometimes. I don't doubt that the Ottomans were able to occupy Balkan cities, sack them and plunder, but that doesn't mean they were able to fully conquer and annex them into their empire. It's more similar to the way Huns, Vikings or Mongols raided certain territories without ever establishing political rule over them. At most, the Ottomans were able to assert themselves from time to time, but never actually fully establish their rule like they did in the Byzantine territories they conquered.
Never once did I claim that there is *never* anti-Islamism or ultra-nationalism in any retellings of history, please don't misrepresent what I said. I said that *
in the specific context of examining Ottoman political administration in the Balkans* the idea that nationalism has led to a slanted portrayal with regard to the totality Ottoman rule does not significantly influence the classical historical conception of the period.
For the next part of my argument, here's a relevant word:
Conquest: n. the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.
"the conquest of the Aztecs by the Spanish" synonyms: defeat, vanquishment, annihilation, overthrow, subjugation, rout, mastery, crushing; More
n. a territory that has been gained by the use of subjugation and military force. plural noun: conquests "colonial conquests"
This definition of conquest (from google) does not clarify to what degree the conqueror must assume control over the conquered in order for the definition to apply. By this definition, the degree of control (from vassal states to fully incorporated territories) is a meaningless distinction when discussing whether or not the Ottomans effectively conquered the Balkans.
So what, therefore, are you asking? To be sure, definitions aren't static or technically even authoritative. Are you saying we should redefine what we mean by "conquest"? Because the examples you give of "conquests that don't really count" (e.g. Mongols) are regularly referred to as conquests by historians, because they were able to establish political control over the areas they conquered (Golden horde? Yuan dynasty? Ilkhanate? These do not count as "political control"?). Furthermore, the idea that because the Ottomans didn't 100% control all of the countryside "outside of cities" sets an impossible standard for historical conquests. No country in history has had total and complete control of all people within their territory, and denying the reality of Ottoman political dominance in the Balkans on that basis is a blatant goalpost shift. The Ottomans installed governors in the territories they conquered, which clearly goes beyond "just sacking and plundering Balkan cities".
Third and finally, we can be certain of the security of Ottoman claims on the Balkans by examining the role of great powers in the Balkans between the 1450s and 1914. A fundamental principle of realist power politics are that, if a power vacuum exists, great powers will exert their influence as far as they can until a stable status quo can be established (this can be seen most clearly in the unification of Germany in the 1860s and the US/Soviet occupation of Europe after WWII). By this principle, if the Ottomans did not have political control of the Balkans, other great powers would exert their influence in the area instead, and this did happen eventually, but it took until the Greek War of Independence for foreign powers to deny the Ottomans total control over their peripheral territories. They were able to do this because by that time, Ottoman power had been declining for some time, but at the peak of their influence (the late 1400s to mid 1700s) they had undeniable control over the Balkans.
I think I've made my point fairly clear, but in case there's any confusion, and so it is not possible to misrepresent my views I will summarize my response as follows:
1. You asked, "Did the Ottomans really conquer the Balkans?", and the definition of conquest clearly lays out that "conquest" on its own simply indicates military and political dominance over some foreign country, therefore their degree of control is not necessarily relevant, unless you redefine what you mean by "conquest".
2. No country has ever had 100% total control over all of its inhabitants, so setting that standard as the bar for what counts as "conquest" is disingenuous.
3. If the Ottomans did not conquer the Balkans, then some other country would have, and during the peak of Ottoman rule (1450s-1700s) no such country was able to do so, which is strong evidence that the Ottomans did effectively conquer and maintain solid control over the Balkans.