What would a Mihalid (Greek?) alt-Ottomans look like?

Let's say Osman I's Greek and originally Orthodox friend Köse Mihal ends up at the top of the tiny Ottoman polity in the early fourteenth century. Mihal is a fairly firm believer in Islam and a fluent speaker of Greek and Turkish alike, and the prestige later attached to the House of Osman was nonexistent at this early stage, so there shouldn't be that many issues with Mihal and his descendants maintaining control over their portion of Bithynia at least in the short term.

A few questions:
  • Would a Mihalid empire eventually end up using Greek or Turkish as their administrative language?
  • Would a Greek-speaking Islamic empire be less, equally, or more successful in Europe than the Ottomans?
  • Would a Greek-speaking Islamic empire be less, equally, or more successful in the Middle East than the Ottomans?
  • How would Renaissance scholarship be affected in a Greek-speaking Islamic empire?
  • How would a Greek-speaking Islamic empire look back at its pagan and Byzantine past?
 
given that their powerbase would consist mostly of Turkish speakers at first, I don't see how you can avoid the dynasty sticking with Turkish ?
 
given that their powerbase would consist mostly of Turkish speakers at first, I don't see how you can avoid the dynasty sticking with Turkish ?
I was envisioning a possibility where Greek was used as the civilian language and Turkish as the military language, not unlike the relationship between Persian and Turkish in the early Safavids (the early Safavid power base was also Turkish!) or between Mandarin and Manchu in the Qing empire. Eventually, as the influence of the Turkish cavalry declines (as it did in Persia), Greek might ultimately prevail as the one dominant language of government, rather than one of two.
 
It will Turkify quickly and permanently.
Well, that seems a little hasty to say. It's worth noting that the Turkish language was not a major part of the identity of the Anatolian Muslims who spoke the language until about the nineteenth century. In the fourteenth century, Osman I and his Turkish compatriots would all have identified as Romans.
 
The question are how widespread Greek was among the Muslim population, we could vbery well see less social pressure for Greek and other converts to adopt Turkish. The result could very well be smaller presense of Turkish speakers among Anatalian coastal and Balkan Muslims. Instead we could maybe see a greater presense of Greek speaking Muslim in these region, and maybe a greater group of Armenian and Georgian speaking Muslims in eastern Anatolia.
 
Well, that seems a little hasty to say. It's worth noting that the Turkish language was not a major part of the identity of the Anatolian Muslims who spoke the language until about the nineteenth century. In the fourteenth century, Osman I and his Turkish compatriots would all have identified as Romans.
Did they? How do we now that?
 
given that their powerbase would consist mostly of Turkish speakers at first, I don't see how you can avoid the dynasty sticking with Turkish ?
Western Anatolia would have been still largely Greek in this period,and a large Greek population actually remained till the end of the Ottoman Empire.This region was also a traditional recruiting ground for the Greek ERE. The only reason for going Turkish would have been to appeal to the Ghazis.
 
To be honest from the single page I can access to, the term is more connected to the geographical location of "Rum" than to the Roman state or any actual Roman identity of past populations.
The point is that the Turkish language was not a major identity marker for the Turkic-speaking Muslims of Anatolia, who, after all, did not identify primarily as Turks.
 
To be honest from the single page I can access to, the term is more connected to the geographical location of "Rum" than to the Roman state or any actual Roman identity of past populations.
To be fair anatolia has always been a population center in the former empires, it's not like all of those greeks were killed/fled.
Many of those might as well have assimilated and turkified.
 
Linguistic wise a lot depends on how this empire evolves. At the start you have Turkish speaking military, a bilingual court, and Arabic liturgy, ruling over a population of Turkish and Greek dialects (and Slavic, Armenian etc on the periphery).
If the ruling dynasty identify as Greek ittl then a lot of the pressure for Greek muslims to switch to Turkish will be gone.
Religion will still be a factor as Ecclesiastic Greek will be part of the local Christian identity and Greek Muslims will need to differentiate themselves at court.
So most pressure gone but still there.
All things being equal I see a slower trend (relative to otl) towards a dialect of Turkish being established as the national tongue. Ttl it will probably have more Greek influence.
 
The point is that the Turkish language was not a major identity marker for the Turkic-speaking Muslims of Anatolia, who, after all, did not identify primarily as Turks.
The Turkic states in the "Roman space" used Persian, Arabic, and early varieties of Turkish and/or Azeri. The Seljuk state from which the Ottomans emerged called itself "Rum", but did not use Greek. The only real chance of a Greek-speaking Muslim state based in Anatolia viable in this era is if the Emirate of Aydin endures, and there bilingualism is more probable.
 
Since Mihal ends up coming to the top of the leadership in the Ottoman Beylik in this scenario, I'm guessing that maybe he got there as by being more than just one of Osman's allies or part of his inner circle. Maybe have him ape Osman's conquest style.

Since his success will have been built on his cooperation with Osman, he needs to excel above his peers in the only way he can when he takes over somehow. He needs to press the Jihad I think, but with his own flavor. As a Ghazi capable of exploiting his old greek Christian life to give himself a strong base to steer the Ottomans, he's in luck here because Osman did a lot of the legwork for him by encouraging coopting a bunch of Byzantian Anatolian elites. This means more potential manpower available in the future for Mihal's support.

Because of this, I think we'd see a shift in the ghazi mindset from one where the new converts would want to use the jihad to bring Islam to Rome instead of conquering constantinople in the name of Islam like the more traditional or conservative elites would want. In practice, it's the difference between spreading Islam for the Muslim world and using Islam to conquer while taking on the trappings of the Roman nation.

I think this would mean more heavily Greek and nominally Muslim ghazi armies penetrating Europe yet also working with the Byzantines for support, wringing concessions out of, and legitimacy. Basically, wage jihad on Byzantines enemies and extend (they deal with Balkan infidels, capture slaves, convert others, etc.) They'll assuredly seek to take Constantinople eventually; that's a given. How it will look will be different though.

I'm thinking something of a scenario of Memet the conquerer and the criticisms he received for his centralization efforts, drifting away from his predecessors base, being conciliatory with Christians and greeks, diplomacy etc would arise sooner with a Mihalid empire. Mihal might not have to try some of these things, but maybe his successor would have to try and all while walking a balancing act with the more traditional Anatolian Muslim elite.


tl,dr:

I'd see more continuation with Byzantium and use of their pagan past goes only as far as using it for science/literate circles.
 
Top