Or else from Bulgarians who switched to speaking Turkish during the Ottoman rule. Seems the most likely version, considering culture and genetics. But this is unlikely to work on a large scale, there are not enough Turks to achieve sufficient dominance of the Turkish language needed.If you want Christian Turkish speakers in the Balkans, the Gagauz in Moldavia might serve as an example. Their origins are disputed, but supposedly either originate from the original Turkic Bulgars that founded the first Bulgarian Empire or else from Anatolian Turks that settled in the Second Bulgarian Empire in the thirteenth century. In other words, I’d suggest having there be Turkish migration into the Balkans during a period of Christian rule, so that the populace converts rather than changes language.
Or else from Bulgarians who switched to speaking Turkish during the Ottoman rule. Seems the most likely version, considering culture and genetics. But this is unlikely to work on a large scale, there are not enough Turks to achieve sufficient dominance of the Turkish language needed.
There's also the fact that the Christian populations of the Ottoman Empire were generally more literate than the Turks for much of the Empire's history - that's a significant barrier to language conversion.Or else from Bulgarians who switched to speaking Turkish during the Ottoman rule. Seems the most likely version, considering culture and genetics. But this is unlikely to work on a large scale, there are not enough Turks to achieve sufficient dominance of the Turkish language needed.
The Gagauz in Moldavia (and Ukraine) immigrated from the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century after Bessarabia became Russian, at the same as many Bulgarians did. A Russian statistical publication from 1859 calls them "Bulgarian refugees from Dobruja, speaking Turkish and writing in the Vlach [Cyrillic] Alphabet".Even the Gagauz in Moldavia?
Whose nationalism? Practically the entirety of the Christian Turkish population sided with Turkey and broke ties with the patriarchate of Constantinople, and many, many more Greek Muslims actively faught for Greece during the war than did for Turkey. They were told to eat a dick afterwards, but that wasn't because of their identities being misplaced. More enlightened men like Kemal and Venicelos recognized this, but in the end failed to advocate for them in the face of political convenience and masses to please.My understanding is that nineteenth century balkan nationalism was based on religion, not language. So Greek speaking Muslims were viewed as Turks, and any Turkish speaking Orthodox Christians were viewed as Greeks. Even the 1920s population exchanges were done on the basis of religion. So there probably were Tukish speaking Christians in the Balkans and Anatolia. I'll do some research to see if there are any numbers.
Or else from Bulgarians who switched to speaking Turkish during the Ottoman rule. Seems the most likely version, considering culture and genetics. But this is unlikely to work on a large scale, there are not enough Turks to achieve sufficient dominance of the Turkish language needed.
The Medieval Europeans using Latin in church service did not lead to them adopting the Latin language, so I don't see why this would have such an effect. In fact during most of the Ottoman rule Greek did become the liturgical language in the Bulgarian lands, without managing to replace Bulgarian.I'd be curious instead of Old Church Slavonic if the Byzantines insisted the Bulgarians and other Slavic tribes use Greek in church services. Of course you may end up with Bulgarians speaking a Greek derived language but perhaps they would be more willing to adopt Turkish without Old Church Slavonic
You know, not necessarily in terms of the OP, but as an aside/tangent, I've always been fascinated by what would happen if you had Greeks transitioning towards speaking a Slavic language. So basically something similar to Urum (a Turkic language with strong Greek influence, cf. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urum_language ) but from a different branch of the Indo-European family. Even more curious if it was a peripheral variety of Greek which provided the substratum.The Medieval Europeans using Latin in church service did not lead to them adopting the Latin language, so I don't see why this would have such an effect. In fact during most of the Ottoman rule Greek did become the liturgical language in the Bulgarian lands, without managing to replace Bulgarian.