Weaker Ottoman Empire post 1500?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Have them fail to take Egypt in 1517? If Egypt can some how stay separate and remain a thorn in the Ottoman's side, Europe might have it easier.

That's a mixed bag. Egypt contributed tribute and grain, but most of its resources remained at home. On the other hand, the absorption of the Mameluke Sultanate converted the empire into a traditional Islamic state and gave it a broader orientation, whereas before its energies were directed into Europe.

A surviving Mameluke state would also stabilize the east by acting as a balance, possibly avoiding the massive slugfest between the Ottomans and Safavids.

In other words, "I don't know".

 

[Zajir]

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.

I never said it would be better, did I.

So what would happen with the entire Balkans under Latin dominance, would they try another Crusade, to take over Syria and Palestine?

 

[Nikephoros]

That's a mixed bag. Egypt contributed tribute and grain, but most of its resources remained at home. On the other hand, the absorption of the Mameluke Sultanate converted the empire into a traditional Islamic state and gave it a broader orientation, whereas before its energies were directed into Europe.

A surviving Mameluke state would also stabilize the east by acting as a balance, possibly avoiding the massive slugfest between the Ottomans and Safavids.

In other words, "I don't know".

So wouldn't that actually make them more of a threat to Europe?

 

[Nikephoros]

So what would happen with the entire Balkans under Latin dominance, would they try another Crusade, to take over Syria and Palestine?

They're likely to have too much trouble to worry about Crusading.

 

[I Blame Communism]

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

This seems a pretty big assumption. Even as it was, the Russians didn't just try to Russify everywhere instantly: the Russian partition was "Russian Poland" until 1831 at the earliest (look at the Wilno Education District) and in the Baltic the Russians left the pre-existing society alone for over a hundred years, if we're willing to discount Catherine's brief attack on the Ritterschaft. The meaning of "Russification" could hardly be more differant between Estonia and Chechnya, too. With a PoD far back enough to realistically pre-empt the Ottomans, I don't think there are any certainties about Russia and its rule over other places.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I never said it would be better, did I.

So what would happen with the entire Balkans under Latin dominance, would they try another Crusade, to take over Syria and Palestine?

I have absolutely no idea. Who has dominance over the Balkans? Would there be a huge Hungarian empire? The Venetians? Is it lots of different states? Maybe some sort of Catholic Feudal empire with an emperor at Constantinople, possibly only nominally in charge of most, or all of it? Who is in Anatolia?

There are too many questions, so I would say it could go in any number of directions.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

This seems a pretty big assumption. Even as it was, the Russians didn't just try to Russify everywhere instantly: the Russian partition was "Russian Poland" until 1831 at the earliest (look at the Wilno Education District) and in the Baltic the Russians left the pre-existing society alone for over a hundred years, if we're willing to discount Catherine's brief attack on the Ritterschaft. The meaning of "Russification" could hardly be more differant between Estonia and Chechnya, too. With a PoD far back enough to realistically pre-empt the Ottomans, I don't think there are any certainties about Russia and its rule over other places.

If there's no Orthodox Patriarchate in Constantinople, then Russia is by default the head of the Orthodox world. Having the common religion thing AND the Slav thing, and before nationalism, where the Balkan peoples don't really have national languages or literature, there's going to be absorption going on.

But what I'm really saying is that Russia is too far off in time to worry about in the 15th c.

 

[Keenir]

I suppose the turks, whom took Orthodox children and converted them into the islamic faith was really good for them.

considering that teh Janissaries' lives were so good that Muslim parents bribed people to let Muslim children become Janissaries too....

I would much rather be under a papist than a muslim any day!!!!!!!!!

The Papists wouldn't let you be Orthodox, though. Is your faith that unimportant to you?

The Ottomans destroyed the Byzantine Empire, not the latin crusaders.

...who merely weakened the Byzantines to their deathbed.

And the Pope did not want to destroy greek culture but to unite the two christian churches.

so...so you do hate your faith's independence.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

That's a mixed bag. Egypt contributed tribute and grain, but most of its resources remained at home. On the other hand, the absorption of the Mameluke Sultanate converted the empire into a traditional Islamic state and gave it a broader orientation, whereas before its energies were directed into Europe.

A surviving Mameluke state would also stabilize the east by acting as a balance, possibly avoiding the massive slugfest between the Ottomans and Safavids.

In other words, "I don't know".

Well for one thing Ottoman Islam would be less Orthodox. Surviving Mameluke state would mean a failed Portuguese Indian Ocean adventure, which will be of interesting effects. More Ottoman energy to Europe, perhaps an Ottoman Italy ?

What else ?

 

[Keenir]

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.

why would Russia permit rival patriarchates to have any power? (permit them to exist, is maybe; permit them to be as influential/authoritive/powerful as Russia - nein)

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.

how many National churches developed in OTL Catholic lands?

(well, there's the Anglicans and...do the Calvanists count?)

 

[Zajir]

why would Russia permit rival patriarchates to have any power? (permit them to exist, is maybe; permit them to be as influential/authoritive/powerful as Russia - nein)



how many National churches developed in OTL Catholic lands?

(well, there's the Anglicans and...do the Calvanists count?)

Of course not, Russian rule would be far worse than Ottoman.

Protestantism is in part a germanic reaction to Italian (and ultimatley Latin) dominance in Catholicism, however Anglicanism was and still is in part rather Catholic in ritual.

 

[Nikephoros]

considering that teh Janissaries' lives were so good that Muslim parents bribed people to let Muslim children become Janissaries too....

Let's not cross the line into defending slavery now. It was still a despicable practice no matter how you slice it.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Well for one thing Ottoman Islam would be less Orthodox. Surviving Mameluke state would mean a failed Portuguese Indian Ocean adventure, which will be of interesting effects. More Ottoman energy to Europe, perhaps an Ottoman Italy ?

What else ?

Would a surviving Mameluke state mean failed Portuguese adventures? The Mamelukes asked for Ottoman help against the Portuguese - alone I would think they'd be in deep doo-doo.

Mehmed living longer is one of those big "What if...?" scenarios, with his Italian ambitions. You have to wonder if an Ottoman Empire with Italy but without the Middle East really has much potential as an Islamic state. Would the Ottomans have to abandon their tolerance for other faiths and start actively encouraging Islam?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Let's not cross the line into defending slavery now. It was still a despicable practice no matter how you slice it.

The Janissaries weren't really "slaves". Their legal relationship with the Sultan was more like a vassal, or maybe like the Roman Pater Familias. They weren't the property of the Sultan. The word "kul" (in "kapıkullu") can mean slave, but the normal meaning is "vassal" "servant" or "subject". They were not forced to convert to Islam, although they were sent to Anatolian families to be raised and almost all did.

Essentially they were conscripted, in an era before conscription, into a standing army. Once they retired from service, their obligation was essentially over.

Originally they were probably recruited from prisoners of war, and were thus essentially slaves.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

1) Would a surviving Mameluke state mean failed Portuguese adventures? The Mamelukes asked for Ottoman help against the Portuguese - alone I would think they'd be in deep doo-doo.

2) Mehmed living longer is one of those big "What if...?" scenarios, with his Italian ambitions. You have to wonder if an Ottoman Empire with Italy but without the Middle East really has much potential as an Islamic state. Would the Ottomans have to abandon their tolerance for other faiths and start actively encouraging Islam?

1) Indeed. In the end they failed, got their Indian Ocean trade revenue robbed by the Portuguese, went bankrupt and ultimately got preyed upon by the Ottomans.

2) With more non-muslims and less muslims, should they even be more accommodating towards the former ? Not just less Orthodox, Ottoman Islam will be more.... Europeanized ?

 

[Nikephoros]

The Janissaries weren't really "slaves". Their legal relationship with the Sultan was more like a vassal, or maybe like the Roman Pater Familias. They weren't the property of the Sultan. The word "kul" (in "kapıkullu") can mean slave, but the normal meaning is "vassal" "servant" or "subject". They were not forced to convert to Islam, although they were sent to Anatolian families to be raised and almost all did.

Essentially they were conscripted, in an era before conscription, into a standing army. Once they retired from service, their obligation was essentially over.

Originally they were probably recruited from prisoners of war, and were thus essentially slaves.

So basically, they were an evolution of the Ghulam system. Which is still a deplorable practice.

Not that I will deny that such practices were acceptable by the nature of their time, though.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

Let's not cross the line into defending slavery now. It was still a despicable practice no matter how you slice it.

I don't think he was. What he said afterall was indeed the case. Remember also that the practice of Jannisary recruiting was NOT compatible with Islamic rulings.

 

[Nikephoros]

I don't think he was. What he said afterall was indeed the case. Remember also that the practice of Jannisary recruiting was NOT compatible with Islamic rulings.

But happened anyways. Obviously, the need for troops that are loyal to the government trumps religious concerns.

 

[Admiral Matt]

It's funny that I have someone not of my faith, telling what was good for my faith.

Well, if you want to say what's spiritually best for your faith, you're welcome to make that argument, and non-Orthodox posters should butt out. However, the Orthodox Church as an institution will decline or prosper based on facts, and the facts are that the former Byzantine Empire was being systematically latinized. The facts are that the Orthodox Church was protected and in some very real ways empowered by the Ottomans. That's just what happened.

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.

The Ottomans took over minor Latin Principalities where the empire used to be. The Ottomans then took over a city that had declined so much that it had one nominal toehold outside its own wall. Heck, despite a basically ideal geographic position, much of the area inside the city's walls had reverted to farmland. It's an analogous argument to saying the Japanese conquered the Qing before WWII - yes they subjugated the Manchus, but the Manchus weren't the empire anymore.

As to whether Greek culture was being destroyed.... I can only suggest that you do some further reading.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

But happened anyways. Obviously, the need for troops that are loyal to the government trumps religious concerns.

One more reason why Jannissary system wasn't very moral Then still it didn't end up simply as a sinister mechanism to enslave your subjects' children, nor it was intended to be from the very beginning. It wasn't taken very happily at first, but it grew out to be a very nice opportunity for social mobility.