dcharleos

Donor
By the standards of the medieval and renaissance periods, the Ottomans were a pretty ecumenical empire. The simple fact that the vast majority of the Balkan peninsula is a mostly Christian area is testament to this.

This flexibility served them well during the early empire, when centralized superstates were rare and difficult to construct. However, as time marched on, the ecumenical nature of the empire became a liability rather than an asset. Without a common religion, language, or culture, there was little attachment to the monarchy in and of itself. Aside from those directly benefiting from the Ottoman state, few mourned the receding Ottoman frontier as the decades and centuries wore on.

SO what are the effects if the Ottomans take a harder line WRT conversion to Sunni Islam?

And WI Sunni Islam is itself rejected for Alevi Islam ( I think this is more interesting of the two options) which regards the Psalms, the Torah, the Gospels, and the Koran all as holy books? In the early Ottoman period, Alevism was more widespread--even predominant--in Anatolia.

It would seem to me that forcing conversions from Orthodox Christianity to Alevism (and from Sunni Islam to Alevism) is a much easier sell. What are the effects from this change? Would it work in the sense that there are large scale conversions (without forcing a state collapse)? And if large swathes of Sunni majority areas and Christian majority areas do convert, does this foster a unique Ottoman identity, leading to a more cohesive state in the long run?
 
The Ottoman Empire doesn't need to force Christians to convert to Christianity to maintain control of areas like Rumelia. Instead of propping up the Greek Patriarchate to deal with Christians, have Mehmed II decide that the Christians be obliged to deal with the Ottoman authorities themselves. That alone would weaken the political and religious authority of the Christian clergy and compel the peasants to decide that conversion to Islam is preferable to maintaining allegiance to Christianity. In OTL, 43% of the Ottoman lands in the Balkans were Muslim by 1875 - it would be much greater in the absence of an autonomous (in theory) Christian authority.
 
43% of the Ottoman lands in the Balkans were Muslim by 1875

Does that figure count states like Serbia which broke free of the Ottoman Empire before 1875? Because I have a feeling that's partially because the Christian majority regions either declared independence or were reconquered like Ottoman Hungary.
 

dcharleos

Donor
The Ottoman Empire doesn't need to force Christians to convert to Christianity to maintain control of areas like Rumelia. Instead of propping up the Greek Patriarchate to deal with Christians, have Mehmed II decide that the Christians be obliged to deal with the Ottoman authorities themselves. That alone would weaken the political and religious authority of the Christian clergy and compel the peasants to decide that conversion to Islam is preferable to maintaining allegiance to Christianity. In OTL, 43% of the Ottoman lands in the Balkans were Muslim by 1875 - it would be much greater in the absence of an autonomous (in theory) Christian authority.


Ditto to Savoy's question, but going beyond that--how does this affect the expansion of the Empire? Does the direct contact lead to more unrest and therefore a slower expansion?

In addition, simply dealing directly with the Christians doesn't necessarily change the status quo on the other end of the empire, or its general ecumenicism. We've still got a multitude of sullen Sunnis who probably don't see any particular advantage in being subjects of the Sultan. My hypothesis is that if the Osmanlis make Alevism the faith which they defend, it has several effects.

First, it puts the Osmanlis at odds with most of the Muslim powers outside of Anatolia. The Christian elite is still the Christian elite--who are going to be just as hostile to Alevism as they would be to Sunni Islam or a competing Christian sect. But the regular, everyday Christian peasant is going to see much less difference. After all, the New Boss is still playing all the old favorites (the Gospels, the Torah, and the ever popular Psalms). To my way of thinking, the distance from Alevism to Christianity is akin to the distance from mainline Christianity to Mormonism. Ditto for the distance from Alevism to Sunni or Shia Islam.

Second, since the Ottomans are still going to have the logistical, organizational, and technological advantages they did IOTL, there's a greater loyalty to the Ottoman state. IOTL, the perception is that the Ottomans were the infidels who cast derision upon/threw away the venerated Holy Books once they got into town. Here, the Ottomans aren't doing that so much as they are telling people about a sequel. And people love sequels. Plus, the sequel's got a big helping of mysticism, another timeless crowd pleaser. For a theologically unsophisticated individual, that's a change that's easy to swallow when there's a penalty associated with spitting. Furthermore, Alevism is theologically friendlier to women than any other type of Islam as well as Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism, which gives it an added appeal to half of the human race, and pretty liberal when it comes to drinking, giving Muslims another way to have fun and letting Christians keep one of their ways of having fun. When Christian psychos like Vlad the Impaler roll into town they probably aren't going to be seen as favorably as they were IOTL.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
They would still be seen as infidel. Most peasant is not theologian and 'distance' between religion or difference/acceptance of holy book is unimportant to them. They would follow their clergy and Greek patriarchate would see Alevism as heresy and conversion (voluntary or forced) would be highly resisted and condemned.
 

dcharleos

Donor
They would still be seen as infidel. Most peasant is not theologian and 'distance' between religion or difference/acceptance of holy book is unimportant to them. They would follow their clergy and Greek patriarchate would see Alevism as heresy and conversion (voluntary or forced) would be highly resisted and condemned.

Of course that's true to a certain extent, just as it was for certain individuals during the Protestant Reformation. But the main factors influencing conversion are 1) The alien-ness of the doctrine, and 2) the personal benefit to the convert. In OTL's Ottoman empire, there were a significant number of converts, and Sunni Islam was both more foreign and of less innate benefit to the general population than Alevism would have been. In this case, the doctrine of the new religion is both more familiar and of more innate benefit to the population as a whole. I can't see how it could be that these factors don't influence the rate of conversion, esp when combined with greater institutional pressure to convert in the form of harsher penalties for resistance and greater rewards for compliance.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
But OTL Ottomans also recognize Patriarch of Constantinople and Armenian Patriarchy. OP attempt to make Ottoman religious Alevi states which would be resisted.

IF Alevi Ottoman follows OTL Ottoman policy of recognizing Christian Millet and Patriarchate, conversions might or might not be more successful
+OTL attraction to Islam because its governmental support, taxes and promotion, would still apply
+it will be less 'distant' to the Christian
- more similar religious doctrine, May encourage more opposition from Christian clergy (more similarity sometime cause more conflict), and Christian clergy would STILL consider Alevism Infidel or at best Heretical doctrine.
- Christian might recognize difference between Sunni and Alevism (and its minority status) , and some benefit of conversion to Islam, joining majority religion and interaction with majority religion holder, might not provide same benefit to Convert to Alevism.

of course, that also mean more opposition from its Muslim subject. in fact Alevi Ottoman might become target for Ghazi to attack.
 
Top