WI:Ottoman Serbs were under the patriarch of Constantinople?

As far as I understand, the Serbian patriarchate of Peć was abolished in the period 1463-1577 and then again from 1766. My question is what would be the consequences if the patriarchate was never reestablished after it was abolished the first time? What would be the consequences for the development of a Serbian identity if the "Serbs" were directly under the patriarchate of Constantinople all this time? Would they start seeing themselves as Greeks, just like Turkish-speaking Orthodox people did?
 
I doubt that. The Serbs will just lobby for their own patriarchate much like the Bulgarians did.

But they did after all lose it for more than hundred years. I don´t know the circumstances surrounding the fact that the patriarchate was reestablished in 1577, but without a separate patriarchate, would they not eventually lose a "national" leadership?
 
The Patriarchate of Constantinople was fairly tolerant of other cultures - up until the 18th century, anyway. Slavic language church services and various non-Greek publications were all allowed. For these and other reasons, mass Hellenization is very unlikely. It's worth noting that the Bulgarians didn't start seeing themselves as Greeks en masse despite centuries under the authority of the Constantinople Patriarchate.

Serbian rebellions against Ottoman rule would be slightly larger and happen even more often, and there may be slightly more migration into Christian states. In other words, only minor (direct) consequences. Although they could butterfly into something more significant. For example, if a small or medium revolt goes big and causes trouble for the Ottomans at a critically important phase of one of their wars. This could halt the Ottoman Empire's expansion, or start off an early downfall.
 
Top