WI: Ottoman Papacy

If the Ottomans hold sway for any length of time then I expect the Catholic Church to become what the Reformation originally intended - a confederation of national Catholic Churches.

Not likely. The Pope would probably flee to Avignon, declare the Ottoman pope an antipope, and then return to Rome after it's retaken.
 
Not likely. The Pope would probably flee to Avignon, declare the Ottoman pope an antipope, and then return to Rome after it's retaken.
How does my post conflict with that anyway? Perhaps I should have been clearer that the "catholic confederation" is the Church outside Ottoman occupation.
 
Presuming the Grand Turk manages to hold central Italy... or indeed even if they fall back with their pet pretender in tow... how does this effect Catholic Christendom?

In the former case, yeah, free patriarchs for everyone.

But in the latter case... well, it'll be interesting. I mean, obviously the Pope they carry off with them will most definitely be considered illegitimate and the Church will be restored. But how it will be restored will be the interesting part.
 
I'm wondering what would happen to the City of Rome itself in this scenario. Would the Colosseum and Roman Forum dissapear to build Mosques? What would become of St. Peters? Would the Ottomans repopulate the crumbling medieval city or would they keep it as it was?
 
Would the Colosseum and Roman Forum dissapear to build Mosques?
Nah Ottomans are not the wahhabis and moderns radicals(or those fake of daesh) they might leave them alone specially as Mehmed consider himself succesor to all old emperors.
What would become of St. Peters?
Some areas might be leave, others(the most luxuries one) will be adapted into a mosque(the mosque of Isa?(PUH-alayhi as-salām)? but leave to their new pope-patriach of rome.

Would the Ottomans repopulate the crumbling medieval city or would they leave it relatively to itself?
If the ottomans fully conquer south to central italy and need people to defend it of course they will bring soldier, jannisaries and other to have people to defend and substain it.
 
Nah Ottomans are not the wahhabis and moderns radicals(or those fake of daesh) they might leave them alone specially as Mehmed consider himself succesor to all old emperors.
I don't know, the Ottomans were for sure not Wahhabis but they weren't too kind to the ruins in Constantinople. The ruins of the Hippodrome, Great Palace and the Church of the Holy Apostles disappeared pretty quick. If they were to repopulate the city I doubt they would have any reason to keep the Forum around, it would be a waste of space and valuable marble.
 
I don't know, the Ottomans were for sure not Wahhabis but they weren't too kind to the ruins in Constantinople. The ruins of the Hippodrome, Great Palace and the Church of the Holy Apostles disappeared pretty quick. If they were to repopulate the city I doubt they would have any reason to keep the Forum around, it would be a waste of space and valuable marble.
Yeah forgot they're pretty valuable for that, much like the pyramid and will not care that much as they will need it to rebuild the city, still depend, Mehmed might even try to make new ones...
 
"Unlike Constantinople, or Budapest, or Vienna, Rome is a real important city."

None are in areas of French interests.

Btw, there was a "pan-European" sentiment against the Turks in the Long Turkish War of the earlier 1600s, that included French volunteers to the Habsburg army.
 
Natural progression of the "national churchism" (cf Galicanism, Anglicanism) that OTL became antiPope Protestantism. With the Pope in exile from an infidel occupied Rome would they not be more accepting of reformation within the Church?

As far as I can see that's a non sequitur. Being driven out of Rome might make the Church hierarchy more willing to consider reforms, but there's no reason to think that those reforms would include splitting the Church up into several different Churches.
 
First of all, of course France would react hostile to Ottoman successful attempt to take over Italy, even if we ignore the religious aspect, the fact is that taking over Italy was a pretty major French goal, they're not letting someone else take it, no matter whether they was semi-allied with the power in question earlier.

The reaction of the European powers to the Ottoman takeover depend on when it happens. If it happens in the 15th century, we just see a new Avignon exile, if it take to long to reconquer Rome the Germans may set up their own anti-Pope simply because a Pope in Avignon mean more French influence on the Church. I also think there's a good chance that Church are weaken against the states, resulting in a kind of High Anglican-style Catholic Church in Europe. If it happens in the 16th century, there's good chance that Protestantism are reabsorbed into a much more tolerant protestant light Catholic Church.

The effect of a Catholic Millet are pretty interesting, for one it likely mean that the Albanians and the Bosniaks stay Catholic (this doesn't mean some won't convert, but they will likely be a smaller number), when they have their own religious representant, even if the Ottoman Church lose Rome again this millet will likely survive, and the Ottomans will likely move the Ottoman Pope to Constantinople. The ownership of the Italian peninsula will also have other effects, for one increased income, but even if Venice aren't conquered, it will lose its position as a mercantile power earlier. Maybe Venice will be able to change with this change forced on them earlier, into a more standard European power. It do sit on some of the richest European farmland.
 
The idea of the Ottomans setting up a Latin Patriarchate and it somehow lasting would have a pretty significant impact. The Patriarchate would need people to help administrate the population and collect taxes in the Sultan's behalf - as with the Greeks in the Rum millet, Ottoman rule would cultivate an educated, monied class of Catholic intellectuals - a mix of Italians, Croats, Albanians, Maronites, etc. The Ottomans tended to delegate diplomatic communications with western Europeans and learning about cultures to the Greeks - no doubt that Latins would have a better grasp at this. Just as the Greek Patriarchate was a means to encounter a renaissance of Hellenic identity and culture - the same would happen, whether the Ottomans want it or not.

No doubt that Catholic (predominately Italian) intellectuals would conceptualize the Latin millet as a means to drive Italian identity. OTL Italian nationalists did claim they were the ethnic, cultural and linguistic successors of the Roman Empire - now imagine their vision of a future Italian state including all Roman Catholic populations under Ottoman rule. Imagine an Italian version of the Megali Idea (which of course existed, but let's put it on steroids) that envisions a revival of the Western Roman Empire by establishing an independent "Italy."

Nah Ottomans are not the wahhabis and moderns radicals(or those fake of daesh) they might leave them alone specially as Mehmed consider himself succesor to all old emperors.

Mehmed certainly wouldn't destroy old Roman monuments for the sake of destroying them or some pseudo-religious piety. At the same time, there wouldn't be much effort to preserve the more damaged monuments - as far as I can recollect - plenty of ancient Roman structures were torn down and build over by Christians themselves. The Colosseum would probably be retrofitted into a fortress for the local garrison to watch over the population or a mosque - it served as both a fortress and a chapel at different times during the medieval era. Anything that can't be repurposed or is in the way would likely be torn down and replaced by something else ie Palatine Hill and the Baths of Caracalla, etc. The Hippodrome wasn't torn down - just left neglected so I expect the Circus Maximus to be left alone as it was used at the time - an open marketplace. Major churches would be converted into mosques and madrasas for the incoming wave of Muslims invited to re-settle Rome - anything deemed unimportant would be left to the Catholics.

The old Roman walls would be rebuilt and probably made taller to protect it from the inevitable wave of butthurt Europeans wanting to take it back.

If the ottomans fully conquer south to central italy and need people to defend it of course they will bring soldier, jannisaries and other to have people to defend and substain it.

The Ottomans would do the same to Rome's population what they did to Constantinople's - deport them and repopulate the city with Muslims, Christians and Jews from other parts of the Empire.
 
Not likely. The Pope would probably flee to Avignon, declare the Ottoman pope an antipope, and then return to Rome after it's retaken.

The reaction of the European powers to the Ottoman takeover depend on when it happens. If it happens in the 15th century, we just see a new Avignon exile, if it take to long to reconquer Rome the Germans may set up their own anti-Pope simply because a Pope in Avignon mean more French influence on the Church.
Indeed, the real question would be how long would the Ottomans have to hold Rome for some nominally Catholic area beyond the Ottoman domains/vassals to acknowledge their Pope?
 
Indeed, the real question would be how long would the Ottomans have to hold Rome for some nominally Catholic area beyond the Ottoman domains/vassals to acknowledge their Pope?
Never, only the Ottomans Catholic vassal and subjects will follow the Ottoman Pope.
 
The problem with the idea of the Ottomans setting up a kind of Latin Patriarch is that he's just be so obviously a Turkish puppet. That sort of thing worked with the Patriarch of Constantinople because there was nobody else for the Greek Orthodox Church to look to, but with the Papacy there's be a Pope in Avignon or wherever safely beyond the reach of the Ottomans, who'd denounce the Ottoman puppet guy as a schismatical antipope in no uncertain terms. Maybe Catholics actually living in the Ottoman Empire would be forced to follow the Patriarch, but nobody else would. Imagine if after capturing Washington DC in the War of 1812 the British had found some minor American politician, declared him President and sent him to live in the White House; would anybody actually take this guy's claim to the Presidency seriously?
 
The Colosseum would probably be retrofitted into a fortress for the local garrison to watch over the population or a mosque

Well considering this is after the earthquake in the 14th Century that reduced the Colosseum to it's current state, I don't see what use it would have as a fortress. It was used as a fortress prior to the earthquake, but I assume it was much more structurally intact then. Retrofitting a half ruined arena into a full on fortress really just seems like a waste of money and resources when said ruin contains plenty of valuable stones that can be used for other things (such as improving the walls, building mosques etc).

The only reason the Papacy never went through the effort of destroying the entire thing was because they simply didn't have the money and resources to pull it off, which the Ottomans would. Medieval Rome was also a largely abandoned wasteland so the stones wouldn't be of much use, during a Ottoman rebuilding of the city however, they would.

The Hippodrome wasn't torn down

On the contrary the ruins of the Hippodrome were torn down at some point (can't recall exactly when atm) to clean up the area around it. I can see the area around the Roman Forum sharing the same fate.
 
As far as I can see that's a non sequitur. Being driven out of Rome might make the Church hierarchy more willing to consider reforms, but there's no reason to think that those reforms would include splitting the Church up into several different Churches.
Let me be clearer.
A reformed Church with greater autonomy for "nations" does not mean completely independent national churches, any more than the US's confederation of states implies those states are independent.
 
Top