Weaker Ottoman Empire post 1500?

[Zajir]

I'm always amazed at this attitude. As an Eastern Orthodox, you should thank the Ottomans for revitalizing and protecting Eastern Orthodoxy. The Byzantines utterly failed to defend Orthodox lands against Latin powers, who when the Ottomans emerged ruled most of the Greek-speaking world and were gradually assimilating and destroying it. Constantinople was in ruins, with a tiny population, the roofs of buildings having been stripped for metal, decaying and suffering water damage.

The Ottomans placed all Orthodox Christians in all the former Byzantine lands and beyond under the authority of the Patriarchate for the first time in centuries and allowed a cultural revival and the preservation of a culture that might otherwise have disappeared. Plus, they gave you much better cuisine, and coffee.

So think about that! Notaras was quite right when he said "Better a Sultan's turban than a cardinal's cap!" One preserved Orthodox Christian culture and the other wanted to end it.

As an Eastern Orthodox I think that the Ottomans placed all of Orthodoxy in the Balkanic space under Greek domininace and stoped the development of national Churches, also I doubt that the conquest of Constaniople by Latins in the end of Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy would still flourish in Serbia,Russia,Bulgaria,Georgia and Wallachia and Moldavia.

I don't see what was so good about Greek dominance, zou seem to think that Orthodoxy existed only in Byzantium and no anywhere else.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

As an Eastern Orthodox I think that the Ottomans placed all of Orthodoxy in the Balkanic space under Greek domininace and stoped the development of national Churches, also I doubt that the conquest of Constaniople by Latins in the end of Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy would still flourish in Serbia,Russia,Bulgaria,Georgia and Wallachia and Moldavia.

I don't see what was so good about Greek dominance, zou seem to think that Orthodoxy existed only in Byzantium and no anywhere else.

That's an intelligent point - but "Greeks" dominated Orthodoxy before the Ottomans. Even in Russia, the head of the church alternated between a Russian and a Constantinople-appointee.

The simple truth is that the Byzantines at first were the only really developed Orthodox state, and their remnant under the Ottomans was bound to be predominant.

You can't apply modern ideas about nationality to a time when it didn't exist. Once people had identities beyond religion, the structure of the Church was changed. Hence the end of Phanariot rule in the Principalities and the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate. You can't even really connect modern Serbia to Medieval Serbia - they have nothing to do with each other. What was the Medieval national Serbian church? There really wasn't one.

As regards the Orthodox Church, I'm not so sure how much it would flourish. Divided into statelets, I think the Balkans would come under the domination of Latin powers and be Catholicized like Sicily. I agree it wouldn't disappear, but it wouldn't count on any national churches developing outside of Russia.

It's really hard to project. But this "Ottoman prison of nations" crap is stupid and pointless.

 

[cbrunish]

Oh, good, another Islamophobic prick. Ignored as useless. When you guys grow up and out of your pathetic nationalist fantasies, let me know.

Interesting. You ignore the points mentioned and resort to name calling. What, turks didn't genocide any Armenians? Jannisaries were not former Orthodox children indoctrinated into the islamic faith?

 

[I Blame Communism]

Interesting. You ignore the points mentioned and resort to name calling. What, turks didn't genocide any Armenians? Jannisaries were not former Orthodox children indoctrinated into the islamic faith?

We have had many, many long and bitter discussions here about how the deplorable massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenians during WW1 has been drastically misrepresented and exagerrated for political reasons by an organised campaign exploiting western biases, while analogous massacres of Muslims in various places have been largely forgotten. AHP is fucking tired of it, understandably so.

You posed an outrageously flase dichotomy when you claimed that you'd "rather be a papist than a muslim". Not only is this using an offensive term for Catholics and smacking of Islamophobia at the same time, it also has no relevance to the question: a choice between a Catholic power and the Ottomans was effectively a choice between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Ottomans had far less interest in attacking Orthodoxy since as far as they were concerned People of the Book is People of the Book, whereas Catholics regarded them as schismatic.

I really don't see why Janisaries are important to the question at hand.

 

[cbrunish]

Oh, good, another Islamophobic prick. Ignored as useless. When you guys grow up and out of your pathetic nationalist fantasies, let me know.

It's funny that I have someone not of my faith, telling what was good for my faith. I stated an opinion that I would like to have seen the Ottomans destroyed. But I also stated in regards to this thread, that this would not have happened at the time that was given.

Empires and nations come and go. This is human history. I'm sure that you would like to see the Ottoman Empire last. Thats fine, I'm not going to argue with you on your opinions. Just facts. The Ottomans destroyed the Byzantine Empire, not the latin crusaders. And the Pope did not want to destroy greek culture but to unite the two christian churches.

 

[Zajir]

That's an intelligent point - but "Greeks" dominated Orthodoxy before the Ottomans. Even in Russia, the head of the church alternated between a Russian and a Constantinople-appointee.

The simple truth is that the Byzantines at first were the only really developed Orthodox state, and their remnant under the Ottomans was bound to be predominant.

You can't apply modern ideas about nationality to a time when it didn't exist. Once people had identities beyond religion, the structure of the Church was changed. Hence the end of Phanariot rule in the Principalities and the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate. You can't even really connect modern Serbia to Medieval Serbia - they have nothing to do with each other. What was the Medieval national Serbian church? There really wasn't one.

As regards the Orthodox Church, I'm not so sure how much it would flourish. Divided into statelets, I think the Balkans would come under the domination of Latin powers and be Catholicized like Sicily. I agree it wouldn't disappear, but it wouldn't count on any national churches developing outside of Russia.

It's really hard to project. But this "Ottoman prison of nations" crap is stupid and pointless.

The thing is that if Constantinople remains weak and under Latin Dominance, the Ecumenical Patriarchate would simply not be able to administer the entire Orthodox space, and appoint bishops to all its domains, thus national Churches would develop due to necessity.

Also keep in mind that Catholicism wouldn't be strong forever, schisms like the Avignon-Rome one might still happen as well some sort of Protestant reformation is still likely and this might dampen Catholic advances in the Balkans, however in this world due to greater Catholic-Orthodox interaction we might see Protestantism spreading into the Balkans, as even in OTL patriarch Cyril Lucaris tried to bring Calvinist doctrine into Orthodoxy.

 

[I Blame Communism]

It's funny that I have someone not of my faith, telling what was good for my faith. I stated an opinion that I would like to have seen the Ottomans destroyed. But I also stated in regards to this thread, that this would not have happened at the time that was given.

One can express historical opinions without gratuitously offending people and showing apoor understanding of the historical realities.

Empires and nations come and go. This is human history. I'm sure that you would like to see the Ottoman Empire last. Thats fine, I'm not going to argue with you on your opinions. Just facts. The Ottomans destroyed the Byzantine Empire, not the latin crusaders. And the Pope did not want to destroy greek culture but to unite the two christian churches.

1) After the Latin crusaders, the Byzantine empire was increasingly defunct. The Ottomans closed down a state which had practically ceased to exist by itself.

2) What would have happened to the Orthodox Balkans is an interesting question which can be intelligently discussed, but you appear to be missing that the Ottomans didn't want to destroy "Greek culture", insofar as it existed in the modern sense. In fact, they let it flourish and dominate all the Christian arms of their state pretty much up to 1821.

 

[cbrunish]

We have had many, many long and bitter discussions here about how the deplorable massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenians during WW1 has been drastically misrepresented and exagerrated for political reasons by an organised campaign exploiting western biases, while analogous massacres of Muslims in various places have been largely forgotten. AHP is fucking tired of it, understandably so.

You posed an outrageously flase dichotomy when you claimed that you'd "rather be a papist than a muslim". Not only is this using an offensive term for Catholics and smacking of Islamophobia at the same time, it also has no relevance to the question: a choice between a Catholic power and the Ottomans was effectively a choice between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Ottomans had far less interest in attacking Orthodoxy since as far as they were concerned People of the Book is People of the Book, whereas Catholics regarded them as schismatic.

I really don't see why Janissaries are important to the question at hand.

Really? I offended AHP by bringing up the Turkish genocide of Armenians. Oh shit! I'm sorry. NOT. And i don't consider my self to be an Islamophobic person. That would mean that I fear the moslems. I don't fear them, I just detest them. Thats all. And the Byzantines did not have a choice between Catholicism and the Ottomans. They were conquered by the Ottomans.

And if you look at my last post, you will see that I was offended by the tone AHP took toward me. So I used the Armenian genocide and the Janissaries as examples of the contempt that the Ottoman had for the Orthodox (any Christian was considered a 2nd class citizen at the time). And the Ottomans took Christian children away from their parents and raised them in the islamic faith as Jannissaries. I have a child and I would hate to have her taken from me by anyone.

And the question was whether there could be a way to make the Ottoman Empire weaker in the 1500's to make them a 2nd rate power. I answered that when AHP decided to attack me. Fuck him and you.

 

[cbrunish]

One can express historical opinions without gratuitously offending people and showing apoor understanding of the historical realities.

Historical realities? Are you a fucking idiot?? This is an alternate history site. Everything here is not real!! Just what ifs and what could have been.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Historical realities? Are you a fucking idiot?? This is an alternate history site. Everything here is not real!! Just what ifs and what could have been.

Alternate history is nothing more than historically-inspired fantasy unless it's based on a sound analysis of the real events, what caused them, and the effects of changing these causes. I have a lot of time for good historically-inspired fantasy, but this isn't the place. Pray don't be rude to me. I haven't been rude to you.

 

[New Potomac]

Reported. I may be a Greek Patriot, love the Byzantines, and prefer them over the Ottomans any day. But AHP has facts over you, and instead of responding to those what you've done is flame bait, and then be rude and insult others.

 

[maverick]

And i don't consider my self to be an Islamophobic person. That would mean that I fear the moslems. I don't fear them, I just detest them. Thats all. And the Byzantines did not have a choice between Catholicism and the Ottomans. They were conquered by the Ottomans.
.

This, just this...

 

[I Blame Communism]

Really? I offended AHP by bringing up the Turkish genocide of Armenians. Oh shit! I'm sorry. NOT. And i don't consider my self to be an Islamophobic person. That would mean that I fear the moslems. I don't fear them, I just detest them. Thats all. And the Byzantines did not have a choice between Catholicism and the Ottomans. They were conquered by the Ottomans.

My trusty Oxford Concise informs me that a phobia is "an abnormal, morbid fear of aversion." You undoubtedly have an abnormal and mordib aversion to Islam, on top of an agressive demeanour, a poor style, and an improper attitude to history and AH. I try and be calm and tolerant, but evidently AHP's isntincts were correct about you. Ignored and reported.

And if you look at my last post, you will see that I was offended by the tone AHP took toward me. So I used the Armenian genocide and the Janissaries as examples of the contempt that the Ottoman had for the Orthodox (any Christian was considered a 2nd class citizen at the time). And the Ottomans took Christian children away from their parents and raised them in the islamic faith as Jannissaries. I have a child and I would hate to have her taken from me by anyone.

Armenians, of course, are not Orthodox... in any case religious minorities being reduced to second-class citizenship is unfortunately very common in history. The Ottomans were definately a place where there was more social mobility and tolerance for Christians than there was for Muslims under many Christian regimes. Spain, for instance.

I would hate for my children to be taken away, but it is stupid to use this to score points against the Ottomans when of all places Canada was doing it until recently. There were of course no Janisaries in 1915.

And the question was whether there could be a way to make the Ottoman Empire weaker in the 1500's to make them a 2nd rate power. I answered that when AHP decided to attack me. Fuck him and you.

I haven't attacked you and you have attacked me. Your hypocrisy is quite staggering.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The thing is that if Constantinople remains weak and under Latin Dominance, the Ecumenical Patriarchate would simply not be able to administer the entire Orthodox space, and appoint bishops to all its domains, thus national Churches would develop due to necessity.

Also keep in mind that Catholicism wouldn't be strong forever, schisms like the Avignon-Rome one might still happen as well some sort of Protestant reformation is still likely and this might dampen Catholic advances in the Balkans, however in this world due to greater Catholic-Orthodox interaction we might see Protestantism spreading into the Balkans, as even in OTL patriarch Cyril Lucaris tried to bring Calvinist doctrine into Orthodoxy.

Maybe, but the Balkan states at the time were more estates than states, very unstable, and really only legitimate in the Byzantine/Imperial context. With a Latin empire and Latin states all over the place, some lords are going to go Catholic to gain advantage and/or legitimacy, and the region is going to be vulnerable to the stronger Catholic powers of Europe. For example, look how many Albanians turned to Catholicism.

If the Ottomans had wanted to convert the Balkans to Islam, they could easily have done it. Catholic powers were not so reserved in this regard...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

My trusty Oxford Concise informs me that a phobia is "an abnormal, morbid fear of aversion." You undoubtedly have an abnormal and mordib aversion to Islam, on top of an agressive demeanour, a poor style, and an improper attitude to history and AH. I try and be calm and tolerant, but evidently AHP's isntincts were correct about you. Ignored and reported.



Armenians, of course, are not Orthodox... in any case religious minorities being reduced to second-class citizenship is unfortunately very common in history. The Ottomans were definately a place where there was more social mobility and tolerance for Christians than there was for Muslims under many Christian regimes. Spain, for instance.

I would hate for my children to be taken away, but it is stupid to use this to score points against the Ottomans when of all places Canada was doing it until recently. There were of course no Janisaries in 1915.



I haven't attacked you and you have attacked me. Your hypocrisy is quite staggering.

I wouldn't bother with the troll. People like that are only interested in grinding their nationalist axes. Let's return to civilized adult discussion. I realize that's nearly impossible when the word "Ottoman", "Turk", or "Islam" is mentioned.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Reported. I may be a Greek Patriot, love the Byzantines, and prefer them over the Ottomans any day. But AHP has facts over you, and instead of responding to those what you've done is flame bait, and then be rude and insult others.

Hey, I'd pick the Byzantines as a close second. But if I were a Byzantine, I'd prefer the Ottomans to the Latins any day.

 

[Nikephoros]

I wouldn't bother with the troll. People like that are only interested in grinding their nationalist axes. Let's return to civilized adult discussion. I realize that's nearly impossible when the word "Ottoman", "Turk", or "Islam" is mentioned.

Your additude when these kind of threads come up hardly helps the discussion either though.

EDIT: With the caveat of course that you don't commit nationalist flames though.

 

[Zajir]

Maybe, but the Balkan states at the time were more estates than states, very unstable, and really only legitimate in the Byzantine/Imperial context. With a Latin empire and Latin states all over the place, some lords are going to go Catholic to gain advantage and/or legitimacy, and the region is going to be vulnerable to the stronger Catholic powers of Europe. For example, look how many Albanians turned to Catholicism.

If the Ottomans had wanted to convert the Balkans to Islam, they could easily have done it. Catholic powers were not so reserved in this regard...

This is certainly possible as even in OTl some princes adopted Catholicism (Vlad Tepes for example), however I doubt that the population would turn over to Latin Rite.There might arise some sort Uniate arrangement where the authority of the pope is recognized but the eastern uniate churches are fully autonomous.

Also with no Ottoman support for the Khanate of the Crimea, Russia could rise to preeminence faster and could act as an imperial sovereign over the Orthodox polities, as with Constaninople under Latin Rule Moscow becomes the most important patriarchate.

 

[Zajir]

I wonder what will happen after Abdul Hadi Pasha scenario happens, and Latins conquer the entire Balkans, what would the effects be of all Europe except Russia being Catholic?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

This is certainly possible as even in OTl some princes adopted Catholicism (Vlad Tepes for example), however I doubt that the population would turn over to Latin Rite.There might arise some sort Uniate arrangement where the authority of the pope is recognized but the eastern uniate churches are fully autonomous.

Also with no Ottoman support for the Khanate of the Crimea, Russia could rise to preeminence faster and could act as an imperial sovereign over the Orthodox polities, as with Constaninople under Latin Rule Moscow becomes the most important patriarchate.

Well that is certainly worse than the Ottomans. Russian domination of the Balkan region would mean Russification.

But that is too far off in the future. Russia is not going to emerge as a real power in the region for centuries, Ottoman support of the Crimeans or not. That leaves several hundred years for Latin powers to do their thing.