WI: More successful 19th/20th century Ottoman Empire rebuilds the Seven Wonders?

Because its’ not going to be the same thing.They are not gonna look the same,and definitely not gonna be built with the same technique.It’s not going to be educational.

Why would it need to be the same thing and look the same, and why is it somehow not educational to have the actual building there for people to look at?
 
Europeans are going crazy at the time for Egyptomania, what if that is expanded to all ancient civilizations in Greece/Anatolia/Levant/Egypt? The Ottomans would restore the sites to encourage tourism and increase prestige
 
While at times the leadership and portions of the populace of the Ottoman Empire had issues with keeping to Islamic laws and morals against drinking alcohol, not using things that might intoxicate them, as well as various sexual stuff (certain tribal and national leaders did things to children of both genders, which is still sadly present in areas like Afghanistan including with members of the Northern Alliance) I do not think that things as public as making an enormous statue to the Greek sun god that had originally been built to celebrate military victory, nor rebuilding a temple to Zeus and making an enormous statue for him. Hell, even if they did they would probably wreck whatever ruins were left. Also, check out the Wikipedia page for the Wonders of the World and see how they show the Pyramids. Given enough time and distance, people will be unsure how thighs look, and in the case of the Pyramids they were simple geometric shapes. Much more difficult to build temples.
 
In fairness, this idea does not seem all that different from what Viollet-le-Duc did in France OTL.

Nope, Viollet-le-Duc had a huge knowledge of art history and "archeology" in the 19th c. sense. If you study closely his works, you can see how carefully researched are his reconstructions. In Pierrefonds, for instance, while the internal palace is a complete creation, and assumed as such, the outer walls are a very careful reconstitution of the medieval fortification. Same in Carcassonne. Notre-Dame may be more contentious, because of the destruction of the Baroque chapel, but the general plan for restauration was Lassus', not Viollet-le-Duc's.
 
Did he ever finish this? I thought it was interrupted by the war.

Would the project as planned have some artistic merit or be conducted with an eye towards any genuine restoration?
It was interrupted by the Iraq War indeed, and his "reconstruction" of Babylon is pretty heavily disliked because it's both highly speculative and destroyed potential archeological sites or artifacts in the area.

So when a skilled artist depicts their version of the wonder in question (like, say, Maarten van Heemskerck) then it's usually considered a good work of art. But if a government commissions a skilled architect to translate those depictions to reality on the actual site of the ruin, it's just "Disneyland"? They'd be educational, since it would vividly bring Antiquity back to life in the eyes of visitors. And they'd certainly have great artistic value both architecturally and regarding the sculptures, the reliefs, and other components of the building.
Van Heemskreck did not replace anything of greater value. His engravings replaced nothing of value, they're completely stand alone depictions to give us some idea (albeit a fairly inaccurate idea) of what the wonders may have looked like, that's fine. What's not fine is destroying or building over potential remains of these sites for some kitschy fantasy reconstruction that will never be able to recapture the feel or glory these monuments once did.

You'd understand this if you've ever been to Greece or Rome in real life. "Restoring" the Colosseum for example would be a crime and take away so much from the beauty of it. When you're in the Colosseum you can tell every stone has a story that goes back 2000 years, you can see scratches from medieval looters, ancient graffiti etc.

This is not how you treat archeology, it's not a theme park, this is buried history we're talking about. We can ultimately learn SO MUCH MORE from excavations than some speculative fantasy which will never be able to recapture the feel of the original buildings in the first place.

By the way the so-called reconstruction of the Colossus that's been proposed is a joke. First off I see no way Greece will be able to afford such a thing in it's current state, they should spend money on more pressing matters. Furthermore this "reconstruction" is intentionally not on the original site, is not the same size and does not look the same as the Colossus originally looked. It's hardly even a reconstruction, and at that point it becomes even more like Disneyworld, which I do not want in the historical area of Rhodes.
 
Last edited:
While at times the leadership and portions of the populace of the Ottoman Empire had issues with keeping to Islamic laws and morals against drinking alcohol, not using things that might intoxicate them, as well as various sexual stuff (certain tribal and national leaders did things to children of both genders, which is still sadly present in areas like Afghanistan including with members of the Northern Alliance) I do not think that things as public as making an enormous statue to the Greek sun god that had originally been built to celebrate military victory, nor rebuilding a temple to Zeus and making an enormous statue for him. Hell, even if they did they would probably wreck whatever ruins were left. Also, check out the Wikipedia page for the Wonders of the World and see how they show the Pyramids. Given enough time and distance, people will be unsure how thighs look, and in the case of the Pyramids they were simple geometric shapes. Much more difficult to build temples.

Given that all of those are in the more cosmopolitan parts of the Ottoman Empire in Greece and Western Anatolia, I doubt that would really be a problem. The worship of Helios, Zeus, Artemis, or any of those other figures is a recent fringe thing and wouldn't have even been thought of back in the early 20th century, so you can't make the argument that it would lead people into idolatry anymore than all those European paintings and statues of Greco-Roman mythology would. Yes, Islam forbids making images of people, yes, you can frame it as "our sultan is promoting paganism!", but to devout Muslims, the Ottoman leadership being corrupt and worldly wouldn't be anything new.

Van Heemskreck did not replace anything of greater value. His engravings replaced nothing of value, they're completely stand alone depictions to give us some idea (albeit a fairly inaccurate idea) of what the wonders may have looked like, that's fine. What's not fine is destroying or building over potential remains of these sites for some kitschy fantasy reconstruction that will never be able to recapture the feel or glory these monuments once did.

You'd understand this if you've ever been to Greece or Rome in real life. "Restoring" the Colosseum for example would be a crime and take away so much from the beauty of it. When you're in the Colosseum you can tell every stone has a story that goes back 2000 years, you can see scratches from medieval looters, ancient graffiti etc.

This is not how you treat archeology, it's not a theme park, this is buried history we're talking about. We can ultimately learn SO MUCH MORE from excavations than some speculative fantasy which will never be able to recapture the feel of the original buildings in the first place.

So because it isn't 100% the original thing (even though no one alive can partake in it), it has no value at all and absolutely no one should be allowed to partake in any value the reconstruction has. Somehow, relocating rubble and rebuilding what once stood means no matter how artistic and incredible the reconstruction is, it's automatically kitsch, even if the greatest architects in the world designed it, the greatest artists and sculptors did the other work, and the foremost art critics of the day praised it as a work of incredible beauty.

None of this makes sense to me. The people of Antiquity would laugh at such ideas.

By the way the so-called reconstruction of the Colossus that's been proposed is a joke. First off I see no way Greece will be able to afford such a thing in it's current state, they should spend money on more pressing matters. Furthermore this "reconstruction" is intentionally not on the original site, is not the same size and does not look the same as the Colossus originally looked. It's hardly even a reconstruction, and at that point it becomes even more like Disneyworld, which I do not want in the historical area of Rhodes.

At this point your argument is getting ridiculous and you sound 100% like the early critics of the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty which ruined Paris/New York respectively.
 
So because it isn't 100% the original thing (even though no one alive can partake in it), it has no value at all
Oh it would have value, about the same value as the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas.

Somehow, relocating rubble and rebuilding what once stood means no matter how artistic
First off, I think it's very concerning you brush off possibly precious archeological remains as "rubble", this is 18th Century level archeology, and that resulted in so much destruction. Also you wouldn't be "rebuilding" anything because ultimately it wouldn't be even remotely close to the original. It would be a fantasy building roughly based on the original. Just look at the "reconstruction" of the Pharos in China to see what I mean. T'is not how you treat archeological sites.

None of this makes sense to me. The people of Antiquity would laugh at such ideas.
People in Antiquity also had extremely little respect for archeology and would happily tear down an ancient building if it meant it could be used as a quarry for new construction. You don't want to use pre-modern views on archeology to help your point.

At this point your argument is getting ridiculous and you sound 100% like the early critics of the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty which ruined Paris/New York respectively.
Stop.using.this.example. The Statue of Liberty is a new monument, the Eiffel Tower is a new monument. Both replaced unimportant sites that were relatively unused. They didn't tear down the ruins of the Roman Baths in Paris to build the Eiffel Tower, they built it somewhere else. The Eiffel Tower wasn't a psuedo-reconstrution of an older monument, it was a new monument.

Your examples are invalid.
 
Oh it would have value, about the same value as the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas.

False equivalence. What I'm saying is like if Eiffel Tower had been torn down in WWII and the plans lost, and 1,500 years later, some rich people decided to rebuild it on the exact site of the ruins in Paris. Building one in Vegas would be like if it had been ruined in WWII and left a bunch of mangled iron, and someone built a replica in Vegas, where it would be like the Nashville Parthenon.

First off, I think it's very concerning you brush off possibly precious archeological remains as "rubble", this is 18th Century level archeology, and that resulted in so much destruction. Also you wouldn't be "rebuilding" anything because ultimately it wouldn't be even remotely close to the original. It would be a fantasy building roughly based on the original. Just look at the "reconstruction" of the Pharos in China to see what I mean. T'is not how you treat archeological sites.

Except for all purposes it is rubble, compared to an actual living, breathing building on the site. Just because it isn't 100% the original thing doesn't mean it's complete trash. Take Cahokia for instance--I was impressed by the reconstruction of the palisade and woodhenge (although it's pretty simple to rebuild compared to what I'm proposing). But if they had rebuilt the building we know stood on top of Monks Mound, it would be even more impressive. If for some reason Monks Mound had collapsed (or even will collapse) for whatever reason, it would be nice to rebuild it to what it would've looked like to the people who built it. Likewise, if terrorists destroyed the Great Pyramid or the Sphinx (ISIS has a fantasy of doing so), we should rebuild it, and rebuild it to what it looked like in Antiquity, gold capstone and all.

People in Antiquity also had extremely little respect for archeology and would happily tear down an ancient building if it meant it could be used as a quarry for new construction. You don't want to use pre-modern views on archeology to help your point.

True, but it's completely relevant to my point, since I don't see how my hypothetical reconstruction (with all its great architects and artists) is automatically inferior to some ruins, no matter how significant the ruins might be in an archaeological context. I know if I were frozen for 1,500 years, and when I woke up I found the Statue of Liberty was just a pile of rubble with only the platform left, I'd be pretty pissed to hear the idea of rebuilding the original building would be a "Disneyland" or "Las Vegas" version of the original even if the services of great architects and artists were available.

Stop.using.this.example. The Statue of Liberty is a new monument, the Eiffel Tower is a new monument. Both replaced unimportant sites that were relatively unused. They didn't tear down the ruins of the Roman Baths in Paris to build the Eiffel Tower, they built it somewhere else. The Eiffel Tower wasn't a psuedo-reconstrution of an older monument, it was a new monument.

Your examples are invalid.

I was specifically referring to the Colossus. The original site of the Colossus (if it can actually be determined) is almost completely irrelevant. Here you have a new building inspired by the original which actually serves a purpose (a lighthouse/telecommunications, which you could probably do with one more authentic). Since the new Colossus design is so different, it should count as a new monument. Even if it were as authentic as possible, it would still count as a new monument, since unlike 5/7 of the original wonders, you can't visit the ruins of the Colossus and it isn't even known where they are.
 
False equivalence. What I'm saying is like if Eiffel Tower had been torn down in WWII and the plans lost, and 1,500 years later, some rich people decided to rebuild it on the exact site of the ruins in Paris. Building one in Vegas would be like if it had been ruined in WWII and left a bunch of mangled iron, and someone built a replica in Vegas, where it would be like the Nashville Parthenon.
That's a completely different scenario! You don't see me calling the reconstruction of the Statschloss in Berlin right now kische, infact I think it's excellent. The reason this is different is because this isn't a speculative reconstruction and it's not replacing or destroying any architectural remains. We know what the building looked like thanks to photography, we have the plans of the building and we have surviving architectural elements that can be incorporated. On top of that the site was bulldozed by the Soviets and replaced by a brutalist monstrosity with very little value and zero relative value. The difference here is that you're doing a faithful reconstruction of the original building incorporating as much of the original as possible. I'm fine with that, but there's not enough left of the seven wonders to do that.

For example, at the Temple of Artemis IOTL they found remnants of some of the collumns that supported the temple, what the archeologists did was that they took these fragments and re-assembeled them to give the visitor some idea of where the temple was. This is fine because it incorporates original fragments in a respectful manner.

Except for all purposes it is rubble, compared to an actual living, breathing building on the site.
If that's how you feel then you have zero knowledge or respect for any kind of archeology. If you think the remnants of the Roman Forum are just "rubble and some pillars" then I don't know what to say.

Random question, but have you ever even been to an archeological site? Surely you must understand that there's more to these material remains than just some rubble? To see and touch stones witness to centuries or millenia of history is something no tacky "reconstruction" can replace.

Just because it isn't 100% the original thing doesn't mean it's complete trash.
If you're destroying, covering up or relocating pieces of the original to create some tacky fantasy then yes, it's complete trash, or rather in poor taste.

Likewise, if terrorists destroyed the Great Pyramid or the Sphinx (ISIS has a fantasy of doing so), we should rebuild it, and rebuild it to what it looked like in Antiquity, gold capstone and all.
First off, we don't even know if the Pyramids had gold capstones, so that alone would be speculative vandalism. Secondly, covering up the original stones with tacky fake stones would destroy so much of the historical value and importance of it.

History is the study of change, and seeing the change the Pyramids have experienced over their millenia of existence is important, if you're propsing things stay the same, that means they're dead.

This is the same kind of judgemental thinking the 19th Century archeologists who destroyed the Frankish Tower in Athens had. That the ancient elements of an area are somehow objectively superior to any later alterations and that later change should be undone because we know better.
 
Last edited:
That's a completely different scenario! You don't see me calling the reconstruction of the Statschloss in Berlin right now kische, infact I think it's excellent. The reason this is different is because this isn't a speculative reconstruction and it's not replacing or destroying any architectural remains. We know what the building looked like thanks to photography, we have the plans of the building and we have surviving architectural elements that can be incorporated. On top of that the site was bulldozed by the Soviets and replaced by a brutalist monstrosity with very little value and zero relative value. The difference here is that you're doing a faithful reconstruction of the original building incorporating as much of the original as possible. I'm fine with that, but there's not enough left of the seven wonders to do that.

For example, at the Temple of Artemis IOTL they found remnants of some of the collumns that supported the temple, what the archeologists did was that they took these fragments and re-assembeled them to give the visitor some idea of where the temple was. This is fine because it incorporates original fragments in a respectful manner.

It's totally not a different scenario, for the reasons I'm saying. The only difference is a few hundred (or thousand) years. All reconstructions of these buildings would be similar, we just need to pick the most artistic one which is most faithful. And again, why is architectural remains so valuable compared to someone building the actual building on them?

But compare that approach at the Temple of Artemis to a full reconstruction (the 4th Temple of Artemis). I fail to see how it isn't respectful to rebuild it like it was 2,000 years ago and present it like it was to the people who worshipped there. Now, as I said, I wouldn't support this OTL, unless the sites were completely ruined by ISIS-types of vandals. What I take issue with is the idea of these reconstructions being totally worthless. And I'm saying that moving the ruins at the site of the Temple of Artemis and building a new Temple of Artemis (with great artists and architects working on it) would not be considered much of a loss or "vandalism" by the vast majority of the world.

If that's how you feel then you have zero knowledge or respect for any kind of archeology. If you think the remnants of the Roman Forum are just "rubble and some pillars" then I don't know what to say.

Random question, but have you ever even been to an archeological site? Surely you must understand that there's more to these material remains than just some rubble? To see and touch stones witness to centuries or millenia of history is something no tacky "reconstruction" can replace.

I did say I went to Cahokia, and as I said, if the centerpiece there, Monks Mound, had collapsed decades ago, I'd certainly want someone to rebuild the thing the way it looked to the people who built it, and the current Cahokia site would be improved if they made it appear even more like it would to the people who lived there. But I'm not basing this on my own experience, I'm basing my argument on more than just archaeological value.

If you're destroying, covering up or relocating pieces of the original to create some tacky fantasy then yes, it's complete trash, or rather in poor taste.

And here is where is we differ in opinion, since I believe your opinion defies all logic. But what can I say, I'm rather utilitarian in my perspectives.

First off, we don't even know if the Pyramids had gold capstones, so that alone would be speculative vandalism. Secondly, covering up the original stones with tacky fake stones would destroy so much of the historical value and importance of it.

Let me restate this--if ISIS or other terrorists somehow dismantled the Great Pyramid (nuclear bomb, 9/11 style attack, whatever) or the Great Sphinx, would you consider it tacky, "Disneyland", whatever to restore those buildings? Wouldn't terrorism just be another unfortunate event alongside grave robbery, other vandalism, and millennia of weathering according to you? If terrorists somehow destroyed those buildings, I'd want them to be rebuilt ASAP, and I'd say it would be best to build them as the Ancient Egyptians knew them (including the Sphinx's nose, chopped off by some fanatic centuries ago).

History is the study of change, and seeing the change the Pyramids have experience over their millenia of existence is important, if you're propsing things stay the same, that means they're dead.

This is the same kind of judgemental thinking the 19th Century archeologists who destroyed the Frankish Tower in Athens had. That the ancient elements of an area are somehow objectively superior to any later alterations and that later change should be undone because we know better.

Seems more like what you're arguing, since you're saying some ruins of former grandeur are superior to anything the greatest artists of later centuries might devise. People should just imagine it in their heads rather than seeing it for themselves the same way someone from 2,000 years ago might.
 
It's totally not a different scenario, for the reasons I'm saying. The only difference is a few hundred (or thousand) years. All reconstructions of these buildings would be similar, we just need to pick the most artistic one which is most faithful.
That's the problem, no matter how you build it, it wouldn't be faithful because we don't know what any of them looked like for sure. It would be vandalization, plain and simple.
And again, why is architectural remains so valuable compared to someone building the actual building on them?
Do you not think that actual remains of the original Temple of Artemis, with medieval graffiti and hundreds of years of history on it's surface is a little more valuable than some Las Vegas copy?
But compare that approach at the Temple of Artemis to a full reconstruction (the 4th Temple of Artemis). I fail to see how it isn't respectful to rebuild it like it was 2,000 years ago and present it like it was
You know how you do that without destroying history? You make a speculative model and display in an adjacent museum.
And I'm saying that moving the ruins at the site of the Temple of Artemis and building a new Temple of Artemis (with great artists and architects working on it) would not be considered much of a loss or "vandalism" by the vast majority of the world.
Appeal to popularity.
I'm basing my argument on more than just archaeological value.
If you're basing your argument on the status of archeological sites on more than "just" archeological value then I think you're doing something wrong.
And here is where is we differ in opinion, since I believe your opinion defies all logic. But what can I say, I'm rather utilitarian in my perspectives.
If the modern archeological consensus on how to maintain, preserve and treat archeological sites defies all logic, if UNESCO defies all logic then I say fuck logic.
Let me restate this--if ISIS or other terrorists somehow dismantled the Great Pyramid (nuclear bomb, 9/11 style attack, whatever) or the Great Sphinx, would you consider it tacky, "Disneyland", whatever to restore those buildings?
Your scenario is so far into fantasy land and so unfeasible that I can't even give an honest answer. Would I support rebuilding New York City as it was if it was hit by an asteroid? I don't know?
Seems more like what you're arguing, since you're saying some ruins of former grandeur are superior to anything the greatest artists of later centuries might devise.
No, I'm saying that it's not my job nor in my ability to judge what parts of an archeolgical site should be preserved, and what should be destroyed. Because I don't make value judgements about what parts of history are superior like a full-on 18th Century enlightenment historian.

The damage on the Sphinx is just as much a part of it's history and heritage as the Sphinx itself. "Restoring" it would be equivalent to demolishing it, you'd be depriving the site of it's history.
 
I don't get this argument at all. People keep insisting over and over that rebuilding these sites would be bad for archaeology, as if that would have much if anything to do with whether it happens. History is full of things happening that were bad for archaeology. History is almost nothing but a series of events that were bad for archaeology.
 
Last edited:
That's the problem, no matter how you build it, it wouldn't be faithful because we don't know what any of them looked like for sure. It would be vandalization, plain and simple.

This reminds me of how some devout Jews believe they can't visit the Temple Mount because they might step in the Holy of Holies. It's irrational and nonsensical to all who don't share the same belief.

Do you not think that actual remains of the original Temple of Artemis, with medieval graffiti and hundreds of years of history on it's surface is a little more valuable than some Las Vegas copy?

I said a while back I'm not advocating that. If modern Turkey wanted to rebuild the Temple of Artemis on the original site, I'd be very skeptical. But what I am advocating is that it isn't just a "Las Vegas copy" since it would no doubt be a very impressive building in its own right with great art, and centuries from now, barely anyone would care. If I lived in this TL with a more successful Ottoman Empire, and I was basically the same person with the same interest in history and all, and many decades before I was born, the Ottomans rebuilt the Temple of Artemis, I probably wouldn't care unless someone could present a serious argument that something priceless had been destroyed, not in the same way I am disappointed of, say, lost literature (like the other six parts of the Epic Cycle) or lost historic texts (all those historians whose writings barely survive). I might as well weep for the previous Temple of Artemis Herostratus burned down.

You know how you do that without destroying history? You make a speculative model and display in an adjacent museum.

You can, and that would be preferable, but that doesn't completely rule out building it on the original site.

Appeal to popularity.

Not at all, when art critics, architecture critics, and the general public matter at least as much as archaeologists. Why do they have the sole authority over this? In theory, far more people can benefit from something like this (not necessarily economically) and the world would be a richer place culturally and artistically as a result.

If you're basing your argument on the status of archeological sites on more than "just" archeological value then I think you're doing something wrong.

But there absolutely is more to an archaeological site than just archaeological value.

If the modern archeological consensus on how to maintain, preserve and treat archeological sites defies all logic, if UNESCO defies all logic then I say fuck logic.

Consensus now, but consensus 100-150 years ago would be somewhat different.

Your scenario is so far into fantasy land and so unfeasible that I can't even give an honest answer. Would I support rebuilding New York City as it was if it was hit by an asteroid? I don't know?

This whole scenario is fantasyland like essentially everything of what gets written on this site. But it's a simple question, so you should answer it. Using your logic, no, we should not rebuild the Great Sphinx but leave a heap of ruins in the desert since doing so would be vandalising the site and turning it into tacky Disneyland/Vegas shit. Now, if you asked a man in the times of Trajan "if Germanic barbarians sacked the Temple of Artemis, would you want it rebuilt?", after scoffing at the idea barbarians could mount such a devastating raid that far into the Roman Empire, he'd probably say "what would be the harm in doing so?" (unless he were a Christian or a Jew, say).

No, I'm saying that it's not my job nor in my ability to judge what parts of an archeolgical site should be preserved, and what should be destroyed. Because I don't make value judgements about what parts of history are superior like a full-on 18th Century enlightenment historian.

The damage on the Sphinx is just as much a part of it's history and heritage as the Sphinx itself. "Restoring" it would be equivalent to demolishing it, you'd be depriving the site of it's history.

But you're making a value judgement saying that the object as it stands in the current year is superior to anything else it might be. Is restoring Palmyra and Nimrud and such after ISIS came through vandalism which deprives them of their history? Is it different if we restore those sites in the next ten years compared if we do it a thousand years from now? That wouldn't be much different than restoring the Temple of Zeus after it was destroyed on the orders of religious fundamentalists many years ago. And of course, by your logic reconstructing the Temple of Zeus on the original site would simply be part of its history (yet apparently equivalent to, if not worse, than the temple being torn down to begin with).

I don't get this argument at all. People keep insisting over and over that rebuilding these sites would be bad for archaeology, as if that would have much if anything to do with whether it happens. History is full of things happening that were bad for archaeology. History is almost nothing but a series of events that were bad for archaeology.

Exactly, there's far, far worse things people have done to archaeological sites than rebuilding them in artistic fashion. Something like this would be a vast improvement over what's happened to many places.
 
As a muslim doubt they would rebuild pagan stuff like Zeus or Artemis... still more idea for remplacament for those?
 
As a muslim doubt they would rebuild pagan stuff like Zeus or Artemis... still more idea for remplacament for those?

As noted earlier in this thread, the Ottoman ruling class, while certainly Muslim (although there were many wealthy Jews, Greeks, and Armenians), were generally not very devout. According to traditional/strict views of Islam, only the Hanging Gardens and the Pharos (minus the statues of Greek gods around the building) would be acceptable, as well as the Pyramids. The others all involve idolatry or creating statues/images of people which is forbidden. In any case, this would be the Ottomans more firmly embracing Western culture in the 19th century as part of modernisation. Creating idols is also forbidden in Christianity and Judaism, but while the Temple of Artemis and Temple of Zeus might have functioned as centers of idolatry, here they would be taken in a totally different context and thus only more devout/fundamentalist Muslims (or Christians) would raise a protest, which wouldn't be too much of an issue because many devout Muslims and Christians already disliked the Ottoman Empire for other reasons.
 
Top