Re-establish the Ottoman Empire?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Will I join the Catholic church? I don't know.
Yep. Funny how life works, eh?

It was a plot.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've ignored nothing about your 'point' regarding
Orthodox Christians and Otooman treatment of them,

Sure you have. You have not addressed my point regarding the treatment of Orthodox Christians under the Turks.

Still, let that tangent of yours go by, shall we?

It's just as valid as bringing Jews into the argument. We were comparing the treatment of Christians in Vienna versus the treatment of Christians under the Turks.

say, me, or chegitz,

The Hagia Sophia and the Parthenon, which had been Christian churches for nearly a millennium were, admittedly, converted into mosques,

My point confirmed. How tolerant is it to convert churches? Why not leave them alone?

Islamic law makes no distinction between nationality and religion,

True, but this is not a point in favour of tolerance. This point is neutral. It can be used as an excuse to persecute, just as much as it can be used to preserve.

"Emperor Charles V lamented the construction of the cathedral saying: "You have destroyed something unique in the world with something that can be found anywhere."

Ah, that is sly. I shall have to confine the point to the Austrian Habsburgs, rather than the ones in Spain. That is the point of citing Vienna, is it not?

Secondly, we are looking at a very specific time period, at the height of the Ottoman Empire. How would the treatment of Christians be comparable in Vienna at that time?

were being herded out by their captors. He stopped one of his soldiers hacking at the marble floor, saying, with a conqueror's pride: `Be satisfied with the booty and the captives;

So that they had more mercy to the building than the Christians is proof of tolerance?

THEY ADVERTISED IT.

In pictures, photographs, broadsheets, and so forth.

One could find advertisements that Minnesota had the same climate as Denmark. Advertisements often have a purpose other than to tell the truth of the matter.

In any case, it's hardly bolstering a case for 'tolerant' Christianity, is it?

Not really my point. I defended more the city of Vienna, than the Habsburgs, since Vienna, as you have admitted, is a cosmopolitan city.

Nowhere do I try to extend that to Christians in general. There have been many occasions where they have not accepted people, and others in which Islam has also taken those in whom Christianity rejected.

[Dr Strangelove]

While it's true that the Ottomans could be at times quite tolerant towards Judaism and Christianity, the empire could also effectively put the squeeze on them. At the beginning of the 19th century about half the population of Egypt and Palestine were still Christian as witnessed by both French and British observers during Napoleon's Egyptian adventure. The humiliation that the Turks received from the Christian kings of Europe at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries compelled the Porte to make at least feeble attempts at reform, which triggered a massive reaction from conservative elements within the empire. The reforms were overthrown and the empire literally isolate Egypt, Palestine and Syria from the rest of the world for the next 4 decades. They put enough pressure on the Christian population that by the time that work began on the Suez canal in the 1850s only 10% of the population of Egypt continued to practice Christianity.

I also recall that one of the early Sultans decreed that any Janissary soldier who did not convert to Islam by the time that his enlistment was up would be converted to a eunuch.

[Ben Kenobi]

It was a plot.

Some plot!

There are some areas I can participate, and others that I cannot.

So I can't be Catholic until this changes.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosta/slike/bosnia.html

Becoming a Muslim gave a Bosnian more official rights. Muslims had many more privileges in the legal system than did Christians. "Much attention has been given to the kanun-i raya, the traditional discriminatory laws which were applied to non-muslim subjects (in the Ottoman Empire): among other prohibitions, they were not allowed to ride horses, carry weapons or wear the same style of clothes as Muslims " (Malcolm 66). Another legal issue was the fact that "...Christians could not bring lawsuits against Muslims, and that their testimony could not be used against a Muslim in court." (Malcolm 66). While not all the prohibitions from the kanun-i raya were always enforced, they combined with other legal discrimination to make it worthwhile to many Christians in Bosnia to convert to Islam.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

I also recall that one of the early Sultans decreed that any Janissary soldier who did not convert to Islam by the time that his enlistment was up would be converted to a eunuch.

[Kuciwalker]

Look at it this way, Ted - in Islam you get to be hitting it simultaneously with up to four!

[Ted Striker]

What?

How do I sign up ? Is there a waiting list ?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I also recall that one of the early Sultans decreed that any Janissary soldier who did not convert to Islam by the time that his enlistment was up would be converted to a eunuch.

You didn't get to be a Janisarry until you converted. Furthermore, I know this story has to be false, as the practice of making eunichs is forbidden in Islam. Eunichs were purchased from Chrisitan states.

BK, the Ottomans were more tolerant of everyone than their Christian counterparts. As the empire declined, things changed, but under the Empire, the Orthodox Church was restored, after having been forced to unite with the Catholics in order for the Romans (Byzatnines) to get aid from the West. Those areas of Orthodoxy under Latin rule typically prefered to be ruled by Turks, and when the Turks invaded, Greeks refused to come to the aid of their masters. In 1718, the Greeks of Morea even revolted to help the Turks toss out the Venetians.

While the Latins were kicked out of Orthodox churchs, at the same time, the Emperor gave his protection to Catholic missionaries traveling in his lands. Nestorian, Catholic, Jew, Orthodox, and Protestant alike found a more hospitable climate among the Turks than among their own.

This is not to say they were treated as equals by the Moslems. The difference between how a Christian was treated by the Empire and how a Moslem was treated by the Habsburgs was emense. The Christian lords had to build forts in order to keep peasants from fleeing to the Turks. At the same time, Christian peasants found life under the Turks much easier, as taxes decreased from 50% to 8% when the Latin lords were replaced by Moslem ones.

Jews, of course, found life in the Empire much better than in Europe (with the exception of the Union of Poland-Lithunania, which was similarly enlightened). Sephardic Jews flocked to the Empire in such numbers that until the Nazis conquest of Greece, Spanish was still spoken in Thessalonika.

Of course, things weren't always so great. Selim the Grim, father of Suleyman, very nearly decided to convert all Anatolia to Islam by the sword.

Still, all thnigs being equal, it was better to be a Christian in the Empire than to be a Christian in the rest of Europe.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Sure you have. You have not addressed my point regarding the treatment of Orthodox Christians under the Turks.

Yet again ypou leap in too soon.

Don't try to make up for deficiencies in your knowledge by misquoting or hacking up my quotes.

Th elot of Orthodox Christians under the Ottomans was markedly better than the lot of religious minorities under the Habsburgs.

Charles V was the last Habsburg to unite the Austrian and Spanish branches- not sly of me at all.

And just to let you know, chegitz also knows his stuff about the Ottomans too.

Ooohhh, not the Parthenon! How tolerant is it to convert pagan monuments into churches?

No, really, it is to laugh. Did you read in the link about Cordoba about how mosques were DEMOLISHED across Spain? Not converted, not preserved, not repaired, but the usual Christian treatment of non-Christian sacred sites- if you can't convert it, demolish it or eradicate it, or stick something less interesting there.

Now which height of the Ottoman Empire do you want? The reign of Suleyman the Magnificent? (1520-1566)

Not an especially happy time for alternative approaches to Christianity- the Habsburgs, having recently spent the latter part of the 15th Century fighting against the Hussites and Taborites (you remember them, eh, Ben?)
spent the first part of the 16th Century fighting Calvinists and Lutherans. Oh, and Anabaptists too.

The latter part of the century saw the Austrian Habsburgs fighting the Swedes and German Protestants and Dutch Protestants and the French, and the Spanish expelling Jews, Muslims, Jewish converts, Muslim converts, and unleashing the Inquisition in the Low Countries.

And trying to crush the United Provinces.

And Protestant England.

1517, October 31 Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg.

1517, November The Pope issued a statement suggesting war on the Turks with 80,000 men.


1518, March Erasmus first mentioned Luther in a letter to Thomas More; he also wrote, “The Roman curia has abandoned any sense of shame. What could be more shameless than these constant indulgences?”


1518, October 25 Cajetan wrote Frederick a letter in which Cajetan reminded Frederick of his Christian responsibility.


1519 Charles V (Charles I of Spain) was Holy Roman Emperor to 1556.

1519, June 28 Charles I unanimously elected Holy Roman Emperor, becomes Charles V; Leo fought against his election.


1520 Frederick was visited by papal nuncio (ambassador) Aleander who urged Frederick to burn Luther's books and seize and transport him to Rome; Frederick sought Erasmus's advice and decided not to follow Aleander's advice

1520, February A commission was begun in Rome with the purpose of examining Luther's writings for heresy; Cajetan was one of the chairmen.

1520, June Luther received a promise of 100 knights for protection.


1520, June 15 Leo X issues the bull "Exsurge Domine" which gave Luther 60 days to recant.


1520, October 8 Luther’s books are publicly burned at the University of Louvain, where Erasmus was living.


1520, December 10 Luther publicly burns "Exsurge Domine" at Wittenberg.


1521 Cortes conquered Tenochtitlan (Mexico City), the Aztec capital.


1521 Henry VIII was named “Defender of the Faith” by Pope Leo X for his opposition to Luther.


1521, January 18 Charles V & I receives a formal bull of excommunication, Decet Romanum Pontificem, with instructions to read it at the Diet and that any territory, city, or church that protected Luther would also be under the ban

1521, January 27 Diet of Worms officially opened.


1521, April Charles decided to condemn Luther; Luther was allowed to return to Wittenberg under safe conduct, but that this safe conduct was only guaranteed for 21 days; after those 21 days Luther was under the ban, which he would remain the rest of his life


1521, May 4 Luther and 2 companions surprised by 4 or 5 horsemen who kidnapped Luther. The horsemen took Luther to Wartburg, Frederick's castle. Luther assumed the name "Sir George" and grew a beard.

1521, May 19 John Calvin at age 11 was put in possession of a chaplaincy attached to the altar of La Gesine in the cathedral of Noyon. He received the tonsure, the only sign of membership in a clerical order which Calvin ever attained in the Roman Catholic Church.

1521, June 1 Luther's "On Confession: Whether the Pope Has the Power to Require It" appeared; Luther's response was no.


1523 The first of Luther’s followers were executed in Brussels: two Augustinians were burned at the stake.

http://www.hgstnc.org/research/reformation/reformationList.asp

The usual happy catalogue of Christian tolerance.

Let's compare and contrast militant Catholic Counter- Reformation Vienna with Suleyman's Istanbul, shall we?

"
One of the favourite epithets, both of the sultans and their city, soon became "alem penah", `refuge of the world'. It appeared appropriate to create a multinational capital for an empire which, it was later calculated, contained seventy-two and a half nationalities

Multinationalism became the essence of Constantinople. A common literary device of Ottoman writers would be to compare the merits and looks of the many nationalities in the empire and its capital. In the fifteenth century national differences, based on history and geography more than race, could be acutely felt: Gennadius, first Ecumenical Patriarch under the Ottomans, called Greeks `a race than which there has been none finer on earth'. A medieval Polish proverb stated: `As long as the world is the world, the Pole will not be the German's brother.' Mustafa Ali, a prominent sixteenth-century historian, extolled as a source of strength the number of nationalities in the empire Turks, Greeks, Franks, Kurds, Serbs, Arabs and others. In the nineteenth century a minister of the Sultan, Cevdet Pasha, called the Ottoman Empire a great society `because its people spoke many languages and because it selected the best talents, customs and manners from among its various nations'. The variety of nationalities in Istanbul was proudly advertised in drawings, photographs and the composition of the Sultan's bodyguard; in the twentieth, in political processions and the deputation sent to depose a Sultan. "

from Philip Mansel's "Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924".

Of course you haven't actually given us any information on how tolerant or intolerant the Vienna of the 16th Century was, have you?

The Winter King:

"Elector Frederick, the WINTER KING, fled the country. Habsburg rule was reestablished. The protestant noblemen of Bohemia and consuls of Prague were convicted of treason, sentenced to death and executed, their estates auctioned off. In 1627 the RECATHOLICIZATION PATENT was published and the estates reestablished (where a chamber of the (Catholic) clergy was added and the influence of the burghers reduced). The Jesuits were given free hand in converting the population to Catholicism, the INQUISITION being a major tool. Many Czech noblemen and burghers chose emigration over conversion. Among the emigrants was Jan Amos Komensky, better known under his latinized name COMENIUS, regarded the father of educational science.
The rebellion had primarily happened in Bohemia proper, not in the Bohemian sidelands of Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia. Many of the executed noblemen had been Czechs. Their estates now were bought up by Germans, who, like Moravian knight ALBRECHT EUSEBIUS VON WALLENSTEIN, made a fortune - the mass sale of huge estates had caused the prices to drop dramatically. The power of the Bohemian estates was broken; they were to be ruled from Vienna until 1918."

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/germany/30yearsczech.html

Sounds very tolerant indeed.

And yes, conversion to Islam gave a Muslim more rights, and more responsibilities too. Conversion to Christianity or Protestantism in Habsburg lands brought the rack, auto da fe, war and exile.

[Ben Kenobi]

it was better to be a Christian in the Empire than to be a Christian in the rest of Europe.

Depends on whether you were a Lutheran in a Catholic state, or a Catholic in a Lutheran state. Or even a Catholic in England.

I agree with you on some of your points, particularly regarding Hungary. One of the reasons the Habsburgs had so many problems is that they came down rather harshly on the Hungarians, thus they also sought the protection of the Turks rather than the Austrians.

However, lest you forget, the Catholics who ended up in Turkey had the worst of it. They were the sworn enemy of the Turks, and expected no mercy while receiving none.

The same is true regarding the rulers... It mattered much more whom you lived under rather than the religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Charles V was the last Habsburg to unite the Austrian and Spanish branches- not sly of me at all.

No, very sly. I had forgotten that he was responsible for both, and thus evidence in Spain can be used against me in Vienna.

Ooohhh, not the Parthenon! How tolerant is it to convert pagan monuments into churches?

That's interjecting an argument you can't apply here. I only have to show that the Turks were just the same. So it does you no good to show that the Christians were just as bad as the Turks.

Of course you haven't actually given us any information on how tolerant or intolerant the Vienna of the 16th Century was, have you?

No I haven't. You're doing a good job yourself.

A medieval Polish proverb stated: `As long as the world is the world, the Pole will not be the German's brother.'

Funny then that the Poles take so much pride in assisting the Austrians to defeat the Turks? Perhaps you overstate the animosity between the two.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, eh?

Conversion to Christianity or Protestantism in Habsburg lands brought the rack, auto da fe, war and exile.

To Christianity? Surely Catholics are also Christians.

Remember, according to them, everyone starts out Catholic, and then rejects the church. So long as the church is part of the state, the state would have the authority over the people.

While you extoll the control exercised by the Turks over the Orthodox church, it also has the effect of regulating and controlling the churches.

Thus, while Suleyman refrained from persecutions, many of the Sultans did not. The structure of government between the Turks and the Christians was not all that different.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by molly bloom
chegitz also knows his stuff about the Ottomans too.

I do extensive modding for the game Europa-Universalis II specifically around the Ottoman Empire. For the last two and half years, I've been studying the Ottomans constantly. I'm such a nerd.

[Ben Kenobi]

in such numbers that until the Nazis conquest of Greece, Spanish was still spoken in Thessalonika.

They even have a seperate branch of Hebrew that they speak, the Jewish immigrants from this region. Haketia, I believe is what they call it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

No, very sly. I had forgotten that he was responsible for both, and thus evidence in Spain can be used against me in Vienna.

Funny then that the Poles take so much pride in assisting the Austrians to defeat the Turks? Perhaps you overstate the animosity between the two.

While you extoll the control exercised by the Turks over the Orthodox church, it also has the effect of regulating and controlling the churches.

Thus, while Suleyman refrained from persecutions, many of the Sultans did not. The structure of government between the Turks and the Christians was not all that different.

You must get out of these pernicious habits of misrepresenting what I say, as well as not providing any evidence for your outlandish assertions.

Where's your evidence on how 'cosmopolitan' and diverse and tolerant Habsburg Vienna was in the sixteenth century?

Oh, that's right, nowhere. Surprise!


I haven't 'extolled the control' of the Orthodox Church by the Ottoman emperors anywhere. I provided a link to an Orthodox site that described the history of the church in the Ottoman Empire after the fall of Constantinople. And how much more power and influence the Patriarch gained under the Ottomans.

Now with regards to your amnesia or lack of knowledge of Charles V and I, really, I wasn't being sly at all.

The Inquisition didn't just hop over from Spain to Austria- it was instituted in Habsburg Central Europe as a method of political and religious control- the extirpation of non-Catholic religion and Czech/Bohemian nationalism.

I can't recall stating there was any animosity between the Poles and Austrians- are you reading some posts from an alternate reality or just making it up as you go along?

Quoting someone else's article with a Polish proverb in it is hardly an examination of Polish/Habsburg relations.

In any case, Catholic animosity was readily evident, between various Popes and Holy Roman Emperors, between France and Spain, Venice and Genoa, Croats and Magyars (as an instrument of Habsburg control)- it's not like you have to look hard for it.

Yet again, you make assertions about the Ottoman Empire, and notably fail to follow up with any evidence.
Where's your evidence relating to the oppression of Catholics under the Ottomans?

In any case, we weren't talking about forms or methods of government- we were discussing relative tolerance for religions.

Comparing Suleyman's empire with Reconquista Spain and after, and Counter Reformation Habsburg domains in Central and Eastern Europe is a non-starter.