Effects on Christianity, Ottoman Italy

Why couldn't the Pope stay in Rome as a dhimmi leader like the Patriarch of Constantinople?
There would be an Ottoman Pope equivalent the question is "Will the monarchs and people of Christian Europe accept him?".
Some will but in my estimation they will most likely be Pro-Ottoman states that aren't militarily or politically strong enough to put a homegrown Pope in serious competition and so will choose a friendly one whose patron is not entirely disagreeable. I would also expect the Ottoman Roman Catholic Church to have a more decentralized organizational structure a la Eastern Orthodoxy as "We're the same Church but you run things in The Netherlands/England/Random State Number Three" makes remaining part of the Church more palatable.

A Ottoman Pope does reside in Rome, but he has little influence, as everyone knows he is a puppet
I think puppet would be a tad strong but yeah.
As most likely would be the Spanish Pope, the French Pope and the Germanic Pope so the question becomes which puppet-master do you get along the best with?
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
There would be an Ottoman Pope equivalent the question is "Will the monarchs and people of Christian Europe accept him?".
Some will but in my estimation they will most likely be Pro-Ottoman states that aren't militarily or politically strong enough to put a homegrown Pope in serious competition and so will choose a friendly one whose patron is not entirely disagreeable. I would also expect the Ottoman Roman Catholic Church to have a more decentralized organizational structure a la Eastern Orthodoxy as "We're the same Church but you run things in The Netherlands/England/Random State Number Three" makes remaining part of the Church more palatable.


I think puppet would be a tad strong but yeah.
As most likely would be the Spanish Pope, the French Pope and the Germanic Pope so the question becomes which puppet-master do you get along the best with?

The English is also likely to have their own Pope, While Kalmar and PL may either recognise the German or stting up their own, both are likely, through I lean mostly to them recognise the German one, and getting lot of autonomy.
 
I could see a peri-modern "crusade" into Italy, but I suspect the Ottomans would hold sway in Italy for at least a century due to the inevitable political conflicts outside Italy that would result from an Ottoman conquest of the peninsula. A century of Ottoman rule in Italy would probably not alter individual Italians' adherence to Christianity, but might permanently weaken Rome as the papal seat and center of western Christianity.

I think they could hold out for a century *at most*, at least in Northern Italy. While there was a lot of political fragmentation in the West, it wasn't all quiet in the East. One must remember that such an endeavor as conquering Italy would strip troops away from other frontiers, which the Ottomans' enemies would no doubt be interested in. Conversely, once they are landed in Italy, there's a very real possibility that the bulk of the army would be removed to deal with said threats/invasions/uprisings etc, leaving just an occupation force.

This ties into the more general problems of geography. One of the reasons the Ottomans did so well in the Balkans is that they spent over two centuries building a power base there, and therefore could easily project force into the surrounding areas. Italy is a whole other kettle of fish-there will be unfamilar territory, lengthy supply lines, including a sea crossing, and a disgruntled populace. Sure, some will collaborate, but I can't imagine the entire population of Italy automatically overcoming centuries of anti-Islamic indoctrination overnight.

Furthermore, the territory is not friendly to invading or occupying forces-lots of mountains, valleys, and narrow passages. Good ambush country, and it has a tradition of banditry. I can see this causing enormous problems for occupying troops.

Finally, I highly doubt that the other European powers would relenquish Italy that easily. While I can see them being otherwise occupied during the invasion, in the long term someone is going to feel threatened by it, especially if they get close to the Alpine passes. Even if none of the Heads of State act, there's always the possibility of a popular Crusade. While it may not be successful, it could at least fatally weaken Ottoman power in Italy, especially considering the other factors involved. Sooner or later, one of the other states, or an alliance, will take advantage of that and drive them South.

Of course, most of this mainly holds for Northern and Central Italy. Souther Italy is a different story-I can see the Ottomans holding on to it for quite a bit longer, or at least reducing the Kingdom of Naples to vassalege.
 
WOW thats really not true! Ok, I guess I must answer then. Well, I think that an Ottoman conquest of Rome would be a hell of a mission to accomplish. I'm sure ALL the Catholic countries would fight bitterly to the last man. Also, depending on when Rome is taken, if it is in the 1600s, Spain will be one bitch to defeat.

Why does everyone always assume that every Catholic country will jump to the defense of Rome? You do realize that Suleyman was operating his fleet out of Southern France, and ordered Hayreddin Barbaros not to sack Rome in order to avoid embarrassing Francis?

It would be easy for the Ottomans to conquer Italy from around 1480 to 1550 or so if they developed a foothold. Spain is just not a factor. How many pitched battles were there between the Hapsburgs and Ottomans up to Suleyman's reign? The answer is zero. Why? Because the Hapsburgs were confident of defeat. After the Mid 16th c the opposition would be stronger and harder for the Ottomans to deal with.

The fall of Rome would be viewed with shock and horror, like Constantinople, and the military reaction would be about the same, i.e. none.
 
I did not respond to your comments that I agree with or about which I had nothing to say.

Here are some reasons why:
-the Pope isn't stupid, and he knows what will happen if he stays in Avignon. The Popes spent the whole Italian wars fighting off Austrian and French attempts at hedgemony, so why would the Pope move somewhere with a fast reach of the French crown.

-It might actualy safer for them to relocate to one of the electoral Bishoprics, allowing them to keep the French at arms distance and keep an eye on the Holy Roman Emperor.

But there isn't really an alternative. No matter where he moves, he's going to be under the influence of the power in question.

-Of course Roman finances are going to be ruined with the loss of the Papal states.

The Church has a lot of financial resources outside the Papal States, which also had a lot of liabilities, for example their defense.

Just thought it would be nice to suggest something different from " the church is going to shatter the moment rome falls.":)

I don't think the Church will shatter, but as I said in previous threads on this topic, the Ottomans will have a Pope in charge of all Ottoman Catholics; I would assume there will be a non-Ottoman pope as well. However, he will be weak, because he will be sans Italy, and the other Catholic powers can use the Ottoman pope for leverage.

Note that despite the existence of non-Ottoman Orthodox powers (i.e. Russia), the Ecumenical Patriarch's supremacy was never questioned even in "Ottoman Captivity".
 
I have always been under the impression that the Ottomans would be quite content to leave the Pope alone, maybe even give him a set up similar to what the Vatican is today. The Ottomans never really seemed to mess around with religion of their sunjects they seemed content to leave the people of their empire to their various places of worship as long as they paid their taxes, followed the law, etc..

Maybe it might even be a good thing, it could free Rome from the cold grips of the Hapsburgs and the Italian nobles.
 
I have always been under the impression that the Ottomans would be quite content to leave the Pope alone, maybe even give him a set up similar to what the Vatican is today. The Ottomans never really seemed to mess around with religion of their sunjects they seemed content to leave the people of their empire to their various places of worship as long as they paid their taxes, followed the law, etc..

Maybe it might even be a good thing, it could free Rome from the cold grips of the Hapsburgs and the Italian nobles.

The Pope in the Ottoman system would have an official position in the government, just as did all the other religious heads (Ecumenical Patriarch, Grand Rabbi, etc.). He will be temporally responsible for and in charge of, every Catholic subject of the entire empire. Given how large that population would be with an Ottoman Italy, his powers will be immense. I would imagine he would located in Istanbul.
 
The Pope in the Ottoman system would have an official position in the government, just as did all the other religious heads (Ecumenical Patriarch, Grand Rabbi, etc.). He will be temporally responsible for and in charge of, every Catholic subject of the entire empire. Given how large that population would be with an Ottoman Italy, his powers will be immense. I would imagine he would located in Istanbul.

I don't know, I would think they would keep him in Rome as a sign of good will. Sort of this "We trust you and we trust your Pope." type thing to boost support for the Ottoman Empire. If anything the Ottoman powers that be knew how to play people and knew how to win their hearts, I would think they would keep the Pope in Rome so as to keep an ace in their pocket when the none-Roman Pope pops up they can say "Oh look they are breaking from the Church they have ceased to listen to the Bishop of Rome." or something along those lines.

But thats only my opinion, you know alot more about this sort of thing than I do.
 
I don't know, I would think they would keep him in Rome as a sign of good will. Sort of this "We trust you and we trust your Pope." type thing to boost support for the Ottoman Empire. If anything the Ottoman powers that be knew how to play people and knew how to win their hearts, I would think they would keep the Pope in Rome so as to keep an ace in their pocket when the none-Roman Pope pops up they can say "Oh look they are breaking from the Church they have ceased to listen to the Bishop of Rome." or something along those lines.

But thats only my opinion, you know alot more about this sort of thing than I do.

I think it would be wise to have a possible rallying point for the entire population of Italy not in Italy.
 
sorry if its been said, but if i were the pope in Rome, id be getting the f outta Italy ahead of any Ottomans. and Spain would be more interesting than Avignon....
 
But there isn't really an alternative. No matter where he moves, he's going to be under the influence of the power in question.
Very true, but I would argue that the Holy Roman Empire would be the best destination if only because he'd be in the best position.

Spain is about to become united under Ferdinand and Isabella, meanwhile France is already under the rule of Louis the Spider, who was efficiently ruthless in his quest to reduce the autonomy of the great men of his realm. Both groups were too domineering.

England is in the moment of ripping at each others throats in the wars of the Roses, and Scotland and Ireland are far too remote for consideration.

The church had plenty of secular power in the Holy Roman Empire, and while he would be under the umbrella of the Holy Roman Emperor, he'd have the most freedom and certainly the most power in his hands come an imperial election.

The Church has a lot of financial resources outside the Papal States, which also had a lot of liabilities, for example their defense.

Thats true, but I always assumed Papal finances came mostly from the Papal states. I must admist I know little of Papal finances in general, but much of Church finances also had to go to paying the vast bureaucracy (along with the lining of pockets) of the church.


I don't think the Church will shatter, but as I said in previous threads on this topic, the Ottomans will have a Pope in charge of all Ottoman Catholics; I would assume there will be a non-Ottoman pope as well. However, he will be weak, because he will be sans Italy, and the other Catholic powers can use the Ottoman pope for leverage.

Note that despite the existence of non-Ottoman Orthodox powers (i.e. Russia), the Ecumenical Patriarch's supremacy was never questioned even in "Ottoman Captivity".

I am in very much agreement with you here. Royal papal relations will be very interesting with a far longer Schism going on here, especially with the Pope having lost his power base in Rome.

The Papacy in "Ottoman captivity" would probably be far more conservative then the one outside of the Ottoman empire, since his power would probably be preserved by the Ottoman state.
 
Would increased exposure to the stringent monotheism of Islam have any effect on the reemergence of Unitarianism during TTL's Reformation equivalent? I would think that the idea that Trinitarianism and a divine Jesus were latter corruptions of Christianity would play well to some of the Ottoman administration.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I suppose, but is there a particular motivation to leave the Pope in Rome?

To give him some level of legimacy, to remove him from Rome would remove any legimacy he would have outside Ottoman territorium. While by leaving him in Rome he would have a much better position to argue that he was the real Pope, and the French, Iberian and German one was fakies.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Would increased exposure to the stringent monotheism of Islam have any effect on the reemergence of Unitarianism during TTL's Reformation equivalent? I would think that the idea that Trinitarianism and a divine Jesus were latter corruptions of Christianity would play well to some of the Ottoman administration.

No, just no, Trinity is one of the fundamental aspect of Catholism and Protestantism, trying to leave that behind, would universal make them be seen as fullblown heretics, rather than Ottoman studges.
 
Top