1453, Ottomans decide that the Greek Patriarchate stays abolished!

In 1453 after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II revived the Greek Patriarchate. Up until that point the seat had been empty due to various infighting among the church hierarchy and between the church and the Roman Empire (Byzantine)

After reading some articles, read what AHP (Abdul Hadi Pasha) had written and posted also, well, putting in some of my imagination...

As in other Islamic-conquered lands, Islam steadily gain new converts. The vast majority by peaceful means. The Roman East: Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Asia Minor & Roman Africa: between Gibraltar & Egypt are proof of this.

This is what I think will happen:

In 1453 Mehmed II decided that the Patriarchate didn't worth reviving. The christian rayah will deal directly with the Ottoman authorities. This has far reaching consequences. Besides, his predecessors had ruled over Bulgaria, Albania & Bosnia without the help of the Patriarch. Surely he is not so deficient in leadership or charm not to be able to rule like they did. Surely not! For he, Mehmed II had conquered Constantinople, the dreams of the prophet & his companions had been brought to fruition. And the Firman (decree)w ent out...

So...

Deprived of their spiritual leaders, the balkan non-muslims gravitated toward their village priests. Who, in turn, couldn't gravitate anywhere else. This condition led to the high degree of syncretism between the muslim & non-muslim beliefs since the priests did what they think was right.

As the priests died out, new ones were elected from among the villagers. As these die out the process repeat. As the first century of Ottoman rule from Constantinople came to a close, villagers began to realize that their muslim neighbors on the other villages live a better life from them. They ask their village priests why....

The priests couldn't answer, some of them don't even know how to read. Most of them memorize the teachings from previous dead priests. So the priests drone on and on about how God works in mysterious ways...& that believers would be awarded in the afterlife.

This is not enough for the villagers. Young or old. They have to pay the jizya to be able to continue being non-muslims. They have myriad of restrictions 7 can't own slaves...why, Ahmed from the village beyond the pass had just bought himself a ravishing young georgian slave!

Besides, why should I pay that damned jizya tax when I can put the money to buy more land or invest in trade? Dang! I just remember, Selim screw me 2 silver coins but the Qadi (judge) didn't believe me cuz Selim is a muslim & my testimony didn't worth anything!

Could it be better....if I go to the mosque instead of the church? They look better anyway (the churches are kept from the tithes of the villagers so...it's in bad condition) & the mohammedans look...well, happier!

The padre is totally uninspiring & he had fight with the priest from the village across the meadow last easter over some weird thing in the Bible. Now he said we'd go to hell if we're friends with anybody from there? Jeeez!! And I've been thinking to screw Ana, the blond bombshell from there...

So this kind of thoughts, and variations of it, continue to swell in the heads of the villagers. The ladies too...think that men look dashing in uniforms (non-muslims can't be soldiers). These brought them to the faith of the Turks, and in even larger number...The benefit, the protection and, above all, the sense of being a member of the faith that rules, swell the numbers of the adherents of Mohammed west of Constantinople.

As the second century of Ottoman rule from Constantinople closes and the third began, the muslims have reached a parity with the non-muslims in almost every region. By the time the third century of their rule from "The City of Men's Desire" came to and end, the lands within the boundaries of the Sublime State west of Constantinople had been definitely conquered for the Faith (because for muslims there are no others ) in mind as well as in body.

Mehmed of course never knew or intend this. All he did was to issue a firman. One in many he issued that day in June 1453 (Constantinople fell on late May), but for the empire he left behind it was a fortunate decision...

*********************************************************

AHP argued that by 1876 the European Turkey was 47% Muslim. This was despite the fact that the Ottomans had the Patriarchate revived & by then had been ruling from Constantinople for 423 years. Egypt & Syria fell to Muslim hands in the 7th (636-645) century & by the time of the First Crusade (1099) was overwhelmingly muslim...

I have the deepest respect for AHP & his knowledge of the Ottomans through the centuries.

I would appreciate it if anyone would make map of Ottoman Europe around mid 18th cent with the population by religion according to my above history. Thanks!

BTW this is my SECOND alternate history, be kind guys!

Rad

Actually, 43% Muslim in 1875

Your scenario makes a lot of sense - but I think you'll have a hard time converting the Greeks - Christianity is such a central part of their identity.

The other issue is that the Russians will assume the Patriarchate, and eventually that could become a big problem, but by then perhaps a lot more people would have converted to Islam.

Still, you'll have an institution central to a lot of subjects in the hands of a hostile power...

And I wonder what the role of the Catholic Church would be in this scenario - the Pope might score some sucess poaching Orthodox Christians...

Thanks for your kind words.

I think Mehmet II needed to have a Patriarch... He would afraid a potential Roman Catholic threat (in the form of missionaries) and any pro-Union priests and Bishops... Thats why he chose Gennadius II Scholarius in the first place as Patriarch... Gennadius II was against the Union of East and West... and he was "controllable"...

Don_Giorgio said:

I think Mehmet II needed to have a Patriarch... He would afraid a potential Roman Catholic threat (in the form of missionaries) and any pro-Union priests and Bishops... Thats why he chose Gennadius II Scholarius in the first place as Patriarch... Gennadius II was against the Union of East and West... and he was "controllable"...

Click to expand...

Ugh, just read the Wikipedia article - hopeless.

Anyway, Gennadius was a powerful personality - Mehmed didn't chose him because he was controllable, he chose him because he was both anti-Union and had the status to lead the Orthodox community.

While it was certainly a factor that he didn't want his subjects in alliance with an outside Church, he was more or less constrained by Islamic practice to put the Christians under their own administration. At the time this made the most sense from an organizational and fiscal perspective, especially as there was no serious external threat to the empire - if he could see four hundred years into the future he might have made a different decision.

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

The other issue is that the Russians will assume the Patriarchate, and eventually that could become a big problem, but by then perhaps a lot more people would have converted to Islam.

Still, you'll have an institution central to a lot of subjects in the hands of a hostile power...

And I wonder what the role of the Catholic Church would be in this scenario - the Pope might score some sucess poaching Orthodox Christians...

Thanks for your kind words.

Click to expand...

I don't think that the Russians are a menace back then by the time they are, the second & third centuries AFCL (After the Fall of the City of Light ) the christians in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia & Bosnia would have turn for Islam.

I mean, there is NO way Mehmed II will let his subjects lean on a hostile foreign power for spiritual guidance no?

I think he would attempt to severely cut their contact. He could say that it's one thing to let them retain their religion, it's another thing to let them depend on a hostile foreign power.

As for the Pope, I'd think that he'd cut the heads of his priests who dared to preach within his realm

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

While it was certainly a factor that he didn't want his subjects in alliance with an outside Church, he was more or less constrained by Islamic practice to put the Christians under their own administration. At the time this made the most sense from an organizational and fiscal perspective, especially as there was no serious external threat to the empire - if he could see four hundred years into the future he might have made a different decision.

Click to expand...

With foresight what might the Sultan have done?

Michael

miketr said:

With foresight what might the Sultan have done?

Michael

Click to expand...

Not revived the Patriarchate and instead encouraged conversion to Islam!

miketr said:

With foresight what might the Sultan have done?

Michael

Click to expand...

talked Jan Huss, Martin Luther, Calvin, and Henry 8th into conquering Russia.
D)

rad_vsovereign said:

I don't think that the Russians are a menace back then by the time they are, the second & third centuries AFCL (After the Fall of the City of Light ) the christians in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia & Bosnia would have turn for Islam.

Click to expand...

Agreed; in 1453 the Russians are still split between a number of principalities under Mongol influence, so Mehmed is hardly going to be in a state of panic over them claiming Patriarchate. Assuming there are no butterflies that derail Russian development they won't be a major problem for the Ottomans for another 200 years (and even then the Russians will threaten the Crimea; the Balkans are another century or so off).

There would still be orthodoxy in Lithuania,Moldavia and Wallachia which were not part of the Ottoman Empire.

Zajir said:

There would still be orthodoxy in Lithuania,Moldavia and Wallachia which were not part of the Ottoman Empire.

Click to expand...

That would be somewhat debateable in the case of Wallachia and Moldavia, since they were both Ottoman vassal-states.

Lithuania certainly has no shortage of Orthodox subjects, but the state itself was Catholic and encouraging its Orthodox (and pagan) subjects to convert, something they might have more success with if the Orthodox church is even more seriously weakened than in OTL.

Perhaps with a weaker Orthodox church the Catholic projects to re-unite the Christian churches as they attempted at the Council of Florence actually succeed? Of course, unless soemthing happens to prevent the Reformation any unification is probably temporary, though it might be interesting to see how a unified Christian church alters the Reformation.

Chengar Qordath said:

That would be somewhat debateable in the case of Wallachia and Moldavia, since they were both Ottoman vassal-states.

Lithuania certainly has no shortage of Orthodox subjects, but the state itself was Catholic and encouraging its Orthodox (and pagan) subjects to convert, something they might have more success with if the Orthodox church is even more seriously weakened than in OTL.

Perhaps with a weaker Orthodox church the Catholic projects to re-unite the Christian churches as they attempted at the Council of Florence actually succeed? Of course, unless something happens to prevent the Reformation any unification is probably temporary, though it might be interesting to see how a unified Christian church alters the Reformation.

Click to expand...

Never did the Ottomans try to convert the Principalities,I think it was in the treaties between the Principalities and the Ottoman Empire,that the Sublime Porte would not try to convert subjects of the Principalities.

Zajir said:

Never did the Ottomans try to convert the Principalities,I think it was in the treaties between the Principalities and the Ottoman Empire,that the Sublime Porte would not try to convert subjects of the Principalities.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know about that (Abdul where art thou? ) But I don't think that the principalities would dare to intervene in the ecclesiasticla matters of Ottoman subjects.

But I don't think that Orthodox subjects of the porte would not try to gravitate there. I mean would the greeks, the serbs & the bulgarians would like to be told how to interpret Bible from the Moldavians & Wallachians?

Besides I think the porte would seriously discourage that (in the form of punitive expeditions )

Well I would forsee something like what happened with the Jews in Iberia. Although there were Catholic, it was in name only - in effect, they were "crypto-Jews", practising their religion in secret. I would imagine something like that happening in this case, "crypto-Christians". There is precedent for such a thing.

rad_vsovereign said:

Well, I don't know about that (Abdul where art thou? ) But I don't think that the principalities would dare to intervene in the ecclesiasticla matters of Ottoman subjects.

But I don't think that Orthodox subjects of the porte would not try to gravitate there. I mean would the greeks, the serbs & the bulgarians would like to be told how to interpret Bible from the Moldavians & Wallachians?

Besides I think the porte would seriously discourage that (in the form of punitive expeditions )

Click to expand...

I never said that the Principalities would evangelize the Balkans, I merely said that not all the Balkans would convert to Islam,also I don't think that all Bulgarians and Serbs would convert,the cities would probably remain Christian because the clergy was better educated there,so we would probably have a sitation similar to contemporary Syria,where most of the population is Muslim,and a small minority of city-dwellers which remained Orthodox.

That would happen when the Austrian reconquered a area, in OTL the threw the muslim out, if the Ottoman has serious converted the local, even large area could be depopulated by the Austrian and resettled by Swabians, the Ottoman when would have integrate large groups of refugees in some of their worst years. This could mean two things Muslims would come in majority in even larger parts of the Balkan (the entire of Bulgaria, Macedonia, South Serbia, Albania and Northen Greece, I think Bosnia and Serbia is going to end up Austrian), Turkish could be replaced by South Slavic languages as the primare language of the Ottoman Empire even in Anatolia. Imagine that a Bulgarian speaking Turkey with borders at the Donau, because of the lack of revolutions in the 19th century.

Valdemar II said:

That would happen when the Austrian reconquered a area, in OTL the threw the muslim out, if the Ottoman has serious converted the local, even large area could be depopulated by the Austrian and resettled by Swabians, the Ottoman when would have integrate large groups of refugees in some of their worst years. This could mean two things Muslims would come in majority in even larger parts of the Balkan (the entire of Bulgaria, Macedonia, South Serbia, Albania and Northen Greece, I think Bosnia and Serbia is going to end up Austrian), Turkish could be replaced by South Slavic languages as the primare language of the Ottoman Empire even in Anatolia. Imagine that a Bulgarian speaking Turkey with borders at the Donau, because of the lack of revolutions in the 19th century.

Click to expand...

Which area are you saying the Austrians will reconquer? (Reconquer?)

Zajir said:

I never said that the Principalities would evangelize the Balkans, I merely said that not all the Balkans would convert to Islam,also I don't think that all Bulgarians and Serbs would convert,the cities would probably remain Christian because the clergy was better educated there,so we would probably have a sitation similar to contemporary Syria,where most of the population is Muslim,and a small minority of city-dwellers which remained Orthodox.

Click to expand...

In the Balkans the opposite was usually the case, with the cities being largely Muslim. That would probably not change in this situation.

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

Which area are you saying the Austrians will reconquer? (Reconquer?)

Click to expand...

By reconquer I mean as kings of Hungary and Croatia.

Hungary (which had large Slovak minority at the time over the entire Country), East Croatia, Serbia (the pre Balkan wars Serbia), Banat, Bosnia and Valachia , More or less that they got in OTL to 1720 plus Bosnia.

Serbia, Banat and Bosnia would likely have Muslim majority or plurality before the conquest. While Hungary most likely would have a large Muslim minority.
Valachia would be mostly Chistian with a large Muslim Gypsi Slave minority, which could be either be keeped or deported.

I think that larger conquest than that would be sabotage by two fact, that the other European states wouldn't support Austria further conquest when the Turkish treats is gone (from them at least), and the larger the Muslim population becomes in a area and the closer they get to the Ottoman Capital the harder the Austrian conquest get.

Valdemar II said:

By reconquer I mean as kings of Hungary and Croatia.

Hungary (which had large Slovak minority at the time over the entire Country), East Croatia, Serbia (the pre Balkan wars Serbia), Banat, Bosnia and Valachia , More or less that they got in OTL to 1720 plus Bosnia.

Click to expand...

That's a much bigger list of losses to Austria than OTL 1720; Wallachia and Serbia were both retained by Ottomans as well as Bosnia.