Western attitudes to a heterodox Christian "Ottoman Empire" analogue

Thande

Donor
Historically Europeans have tended to view the Ottoman Empire as a threatening "Other" for a variety of reasons. Firstly because it was a very strong military power, the heir to Rome and possessor of what many considered to be the central city and 'capital of the world', potentially putting former Byzantine and Roman lands under threat of reconquest. Secondly because it was derived from Turkish conquerors, and Turks were originally nomads and therefore uncultured barbarians in European eyes. And thirdly because it was Muslim.

Let us create a thought experiment and eliminate the third factor. But let's not make it Orthodox or Catholic either, let's make it still different from the states of Europe proper, but let's make it heterodox Christian. Nestorian seems your best bet, given how there were a fair number of Nestorians among the Turkic peoples. What if our Turkic conquerors of the Byzantines (not the Ottomans specifically, of course, because of butterflies) followed this faith and believed it strongly enough not to go Orthodox for the sake of political convenience?

I'm proposing here a scenario where history runs roughly analogous to OTL, where these Nestorian Turks turn Byzantium into a new empire and reinvigorate it with new blood, but rather than an Islamic empire with all the following connotations, it's a Nestorian one. Of course there were plenty of Nestorians inside the Byzantine Empire and it's very likely they would cooperate with the Turks, perhaps forming the core of the new ruling class. I mean Monophysites and Nestorians infamously cooperated with the Islamic conquerors of North Africa centuries before, and that was only on the promise that they would be treated equally with the Orthodox, not favoured over them.

On the other hand, they will have more problems ruling over originally Muslim-majority regions that became Ottoman in OTL, such as the Levant and Mesopotamia.

Anyway, the question I ask is: what would Western Europe, Russia etc see in this hypothetical state? Would we get the same kind of dark and alien portrayal the Turks got in OTL, a similar one but to a lesser extent, or something else entirely?
 
I'm obviously not an expert, Leo or Abdul could give a more definitive answer, but I don't think the situation would improve that much. It's trading "pagans" for "heretics" and in medieval minds there's very little difference. Not to mention they're still a powerful threat and, as you mentioned, of nomadic ancestry. It might be a little better, but I can't think of how.
 

Susano

Banned
I'm obviously not an expert, Leo or Abdul could give a more definitive answer, but I don't think the situation would improve that much. It's trading "pagans" for "heretics" and in medieval minds there's very little difference. Not to mention they're still a powerful threat and, as you mentioned, of nomadic ancestry. It might be a little better, but I can't think of how.

The mere fact that the Church did make a difference between heretics and pagans shows how they held them to be in different light. Punishment for heretics was usually greater, but they were still seen as Christian in a fashion. Hell, after the break of the two churches, the Catholic Church did view the Orthodox officially as heretics, and yet people saw it as a relative catastrophe when Christian Constantinople fell to the Ottomans.

So I think this would very much change matters. It would I think be more seen as Constantinople falling from sort of heretics to another, no big deal...
 
The mere fact that the Church did make a difference between heretics and pagans shows how they held them to be in different light. Punishment for heretics was usually greater, but they were still seen as Christian in a fashion. Hell, after the break of the two churches, the Catholic Church did view the Orthodox officially as heretics, and yet people saw it as a relative catastrophe when Christian Constantinople fell to the Ottomans.

So I think this would very much change matters. It would I think be more seen as Constantinople falling from sort of heretics to another, no big deal...

Hmm. I'm not sure. I would think a powerful empire with a heterodox Christian faith would be seen as a much greater ideological threat to Catholic powers.
 
It wouldn't be the same empire though. Conquering the Hejaz is a lot of work for very little return to any flavor of Christian; and that implies they will take a relatively long time to get to Egypt if they get there at all. They might be more interested in pressing East to get Persia and Transoxania though (more local Nestorians) it will be interesting to see how the Nestorians handle heterodox Christians within their Empire, too.

A lot will depend on the individual reactions between Turks and Western clergy, but the reaction might be bad indeed - the Nestorians were suppressed and driven out of the old Roman Empire, after all. They're significantly farther from the Latin Rite than the Orthodox are.
 

Thande

Donor
Well what I was going for here is to pose the question of how much the whole "Turks=evil barbarians" attitude was because they were Muslim, and how much just because they came from nomad stock. I'm thinking Western European attitudes to this hypothetical Nestorian state might be analogous to those towards, say, Bulgaria - albeit coloured, as AHP says, by the fact that it's a big freakin' power.
 
Well what I was going for here is to pose the question of how much the whole "Turks=evil barbarians" attitude was because they were Muslim, and how much just because they came from nomad stock. I'm thinking Western European attitudes to this hypothetical Nestorian state might be analogous to those towards, say, Bulgaria - albeit coloured, as AHP says, by the fact that it's a big freakin' power.

I dunno. Look at the attitude towards the Byzantines. The sack of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade, the destruction of an empire, was a glory to God.
 

Keenir

Banned
Historically Europeans have tended to view the Ottoman Empire as a threatening "Other" for a variety of reasons. Firstly because it was a very strong military power, the heir to Rome and possessor of what many considered to be the central city and 'capital of the world', potentially putting former Byzantine and Roman lands under threat of reconquest. Secondly because it was derived from Turkish conquerors, and Turks were originally nomads and therefore uncultured barbarians in European eyes. And thirdly because it was Muslim.

one of the things I remember reading about the Crusades, was a quotation from the time, and it read that, if the Turks had been Christian, they would be the greatest warriors of all time. (but, not being Christian, they were second only to the Franks as all-time-greatest warriors)


On the other hand, they will have more problems ruling over originally Muslim-majority regions that became Ottoman in OTL, such as the Levant and Mesopotamia.

They could adopt the millet system, or close enough for government work.

Anyway, the question I ask is: what would Western Europe, Russia etc see in this hypothetical state? Would we get the same kind of dark and alien portrayal the Turks got in OTL, a similar one but to a lesser extent, or something else entirely?

I can certainly see a Nestorian Empire being sometime-allies with the European nations - France in OTL had no trouble forming alliances with the Ottomans to help them against the Hapsburgs, or Elizabethan England against the Papists.

but you really want to screw with the Europeans, you should have heterodox Christian nobility under a Mandean Emperor.
 
Well what I was going for here is to pose the question of how much the whole "Turks=evil barbarians" attitude was because they were Muslim, and how much just because they came from nomad stock. I'm thinking Western European attitudes to this hypothetical Nestorian state might be analogous to those towards, say, Bulgaria - albeit coloured, as AHP says, by the fact that it's a big freakin' power.

The Hungarians also began as nomads, and did a lot more damage as such, too - it didn't seem to have much impact on opinion of them. I think the anti-Ottoman attitude was pretty much the size & power and religion.
 
Historically Europeans have tended to view the Ottoman Empire as a threatening "Other" for a variety of reasons.

Actually, large areas of Europe--ie, the Balkans--considered the Ottoman Empire as the cruel imperial power colonizing and oppressing them. Because it was.

(Talking about Group A "viewing Group B as the Other" usually implies majority Group A oppressing minority Group B. In the Balkans, the Ottomans were usually doing the oppressing.)
 
Actually, large areas of Europe--ie, the Balkans--considered the Ottoman Empire as the cruel imperial power colonizing and oppressing them. Because it was.

(Talking about Group A "viewing Group B as the Other" usually implies majority Group A oppressing minority Group B. In the Balkans, the Ottomans were usually doing the oppressing.)

Thank you for that bit of nationalist drivel. That's totally anachronous and irrelevant to the discussion, not to mention untrue.
 

Thande

Donor
The Hungarians also began as nomads, and did a lot more damage as such, too - it didn't seem to have much impact on opinion of them. I think the anti-Ottoman attitude was pretty much the size & power and religion.

That's true, of course, but the Hungarians' rapacious period lay a fair few centuries in the past by this point and I don't think there was much visible continuity between that period and the contemporary state - whereas in OTL for example, as I recall you noting on here, the organisation of the Ottoman armed forces still showed clear influence from their nomad days. (Also true of Qing China, which likewise tended to be depicted as 'the Tartar regime in China' or similar phrases in the West up until the 19th century).
 
That's true, of course, but the Hungarians' rapacious period lay a fair few centuries in the past by this point and I don't think there was much visible continuity between that period and the contemporary state - whereas in OTL for example, as I recall you noting on here, the organisation of the Ottoman armed forces still showed clear influence from their nomad days. (Also true of Qing China, which likewise tended to be depicted as 'the Tartar regime in China' or similar phrases in the West up until the 19th century).

Hmm. Good point - but judging by anti-Ottoman polemics from the times, it was the Islamitude that was the problem in Europe, not so much the nomaditude. Gladstone did make a big deal out of the whole Asiatic thing, which I suppose evokes Mongols and other unpleasant types, but I think that was still largely rooted in his religious bigotry.
 

Thande

Donor
Hmm. Good point - but judging by anti-Ottoman polemics from the times, it was the Islamitude that was the problem in Europe, not so much the nomaditude. Gladstone did make a big deal out of the whole Asiatic thing, which I suppose evokes Mongols and other unpleasant types, but I think that was still largely rooted in his religious bigotry.

Well, I'm trying to think of OTL analogues that were Christian but still visibly influenced by their Asiatic nomad origins that we could make comparison to as a double blind to see if religion or culture was the major factor - as I say Bulgaria sprung to mind but I'm not sure that's totally comparable.

I tend to the view that religion was the primary motivator in painting the Ottomans as 'the other' but this cultural aspect could also be significant, and it's interesting to speculate about an Ottoman-like empire where this is the only major worldview divide between it and the western countries. (Different branch of Christianity, true, but not so great a divide and not associated with an already pre-existing enmity with Islam).
 
Well, I'm trying to think of OTL analogues that were Christian but still visibly influenced by their Asiatic nomad origins that we could make comparison to as a double blind to see if religion or culture was the major factor - as I say Bulgaria sprung to mind but I'm not sure that's totally comparable.
Russia? I seem to remember that many Western Europeans thought Russia was somehow 'asiatic'. i'm not an expert but that's my guess.
 

Thande

Donor
Russia? I seem to remember that many Western Europeans thought Russia was somehow 'asiatic'. i'm not an expert but that's my guess.

Yeah, but Russia doesn't really have those "barbarian" origins unless you go way back to Kievan Rus, which like Hungary I consider to be too far back to bring up.
 
I quite imagine that a Nestorian *Ottoman Empire would be treated similar to OTL's Western treatment of the Eastern Orthodox. I imagine a new categorization between the Orthodox Churches (both East and West) and the *Nestorian Church, being more foreign ad Asian than European. Outsiders, but not as strange as Muslims are. They may be heretics, but at least that's better than pagans or infidels.

Because of this, I imagine that because of this there may be more Christian military spirit aimed south towards the Muslims in northern Africa, perhaps the result being earlier navigation south. Furthermore, with Christian Turks there is probably less reason for Europeans to search for a sea route to the far east.

Just some uneducated thoughts.
 
It wouldn't be the same empire though. Conquering the Hejaz is a lot of work for very little return to any flavor of Christian; and that implies they will take a relatively long time to get to Egypt if they get there at all. They might be more interested in pressing East to get Persia and Transoxania though (more local Nestorians) it will be interesting to see how the Nestorians handle heterodox Christians within their Empire, too.

Given that religions do and have changeed and adopted stuff from others perhaps they might incoporate Mecca or Medina or both as Holy Cities
into their version of Christianity, heck that might actually help with the whole ruling over Muslim majority populations, present them with a religion
that has key similarities to their own and it's easier to get them to convert.

As for Egpyt, perhaps they might adopt an idea of 'ressurecting Rome' and attempt to conquer the old old Roman provinces in the East.
 
Top