sign in sign up
<<
Home , Trabzon, Turks (term for Muslims)

University of North Florida UNF Digital Commons

All Volumes (2001-2008) The sprO ey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry

2006 In the Lion’s Den: Orthodox Christians under Ottoman Rule, 1400-1550 Neil Paradise University of North Florida

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/ojii_volumes Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons

Suggested Citation Paradise, Neil, "In the Lion’s Den: Orthodox Christians under Ottoman Rule, 1400-1550" (2006). All Volumes (2001-2008). 67. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/ojii_volumes/67

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The sprO ey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry at UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Volumes (2001-2008) by an authorized administrator of UNF Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Digital Projects. © 2006 All Rights Reserved harshness of Janissary training and the In the Lion’s Den: Orthodox strict discipline enforced upon new Christians under Ottoman recruits, and gives numerous examples as to the slave-like status these men are Rule, 1400-1550 reduced.1 Ogier Busbecq offers a different contemporary understanding Neil Paradise from the mid 16th century. The Holy Roman ’s ambassador writes in 2005 History Paper Prize Winner glowing terms of the discipline and courtesy of the Janissaries. He also Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Michael Francis, remarks that Janissary detachments are Associate Professor of History scattered throughout the Empire not only to guard against external threats but also The ’s conquest to protect Christians and Jews from the of the and subsequent “violence of the mob”.2 The contrast administration left a perplexing religious between Ogier’s and Ludlow’s reactions legacy. The Islamic Ottoman presence speaks to dual Western European lasted almost five centuries, yet reactions to the empire during the time remained the overwhelming period studied, alternating between fear of choice in the area. The and respect for its successes. As Europe Ottoman treatment of subject Christians advanced and the Ottoman military and has been long debated, with technological advantage became a thing characterizations ranging from a of the past, this strong reaction to the cosmopolitan haven of freedom to a Empire and its subject Christians would brutal rule of forced conversion. fade to relative silence.3 However, the real picture appears far Modern historians have offered a more complex than these generalizations more detailed look at the Church / State – the Ottoman relationship with relationship. Greek historian G. Orthodox Christianity in the Balkans Georgiades Arnakis focused on the changed over time, depending in part on Church in for an article religious tenets but also largely on the published in 1953. Arnakis portrays the realities and varying situations facing the rights of the Church as legally Ottoman state over time. A glance at the established and binding, but far from Orthodox Christian church under the inviolable in practice.4 He paints a Ottoman Empire from the early fifteenth to mid sixteenth century gives a 1 "The Tribute of Children, 1493," July 1998 revealing glimpse at some of the [cited 2004]. Available from changing relationships of conquered http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/1493janiss aries.html., 1. Christians to the state. 2 Accounts of historians from "The Turkish Letters, 1555-1562," July 1998 [cited 2004]. Available from various perspectives have viewed the http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1555busbe Orthodox/Ottoman relationship in vastly cq.html., 1. different lights. Englishman James 3 Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History, Ludlow’s report on the Janissary system (New York: Modern Library, 2000), xxxiii to in the late fifteenth century gives an xxxv. 4 G. Georgiades Arnakis, "The Greek Church of impression of Islamic religious Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire," The domination. Ludlow emphasizes the Journal of Modern History 24, no. 3 (1952): 239.

picture of persecution, citing part to difficulties in reorienting a conversions of churches to , previously decentralized religious martyrdom of patriarchs in the mid organization into an administrative seventeenth century, and characterizes successor to the Byzantine state10. The Ottoman authorities as valuing Ottoman state exerts substantial pressure Christians as little more than a tax base indirectly (and occasionally directly), to be exploited.5 Arnakis presents the but Runciman finds Christian difficulties relationship as a power struggle, by a stemming from the second-class stature church “waging a struggle for typical to subjugated minorities in Christianity” against the “islamicization Islamic states. and ” presumably desired by Recent examinations of the the Ottoman government.6 Overall, Balkans have used very different Arnakis views the continued existence of approaches to discover a new Christianity in Ottoman lands as perspective. Braude and Lewis’s evidence of the triumph of the Orthodox collection from a 1978 research seminar Church in an unequal religious struggle. builds on Runciman’s legacy in Steven Runciman takes a more examining the status of Christians at comprehensive look at the Church under particular points in time through various Ottoman rule in his book, published in articles. They elaborate that Christian 1968. Runciman characterizes the minority status under was a “” system of semi-autonomous self compact between the rulers and ruled – government used by the Ottomans as it could be used to keep Christians in along traditional Islamic lines, and states their proper place, but also to prevent the practice was so well known that it government abuses. The authors was unlikely to have ever been officially characterize the treatment of Christians written down.7 He does find codified by the authorities as variable depending legal restrictions on Christians, and on the circumstances.11 Overall, the characterizes them as second-class editors summarize the contributions and citizens.8 He also discusses the conclusions on the status of Christians as Church’s ongoing difficulties in one governed more often by practical maintaining urban churches and considerations than strict Islamic law. establishing schools thanks to Ottoman Dennis Hupchick also offers a different interference, but he concludes this is as perspective on the Church-State much an inherent result of the Ottoman relationship in his 1993 article focusing conception of the place of subjugated on Bulgarian ethnic awareness. peoples rather than any systematic Hupchick describes the church as a persecution9. Runciman finds the “veritable department” in the Ottoman problems of the Church to be in large

5 Arnakis, 238, 243-248. 6 Arnakis, 245. 10 Runciman, 206-207. 7 Steven Runciman, The Great Church in 11 Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis eds., Captivity: a Study of the Patriarchate of Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Constantinople from the eve of the Turkish Functioning of a Plural Society, (New York: Conquest to the Greek War of Independence Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc., 1982), 9. (London: Cambridge U.P., 1968), 167, 170. Braude remarks that enforcement of restrictions 8 Runciman, 79. depended most on whether the state felt 9 Runciman, 192, 218. threatened.

government.12 He also finds active , a confirmation of their subject efforts by the Ottomans to assimilate status.16 This sort of pointed legal Bulgarian lands through resettlement of framework is not surprising, given the Turks coupled with displacement of circumstances in which Mohammed Bulgarians from towns, though he created Islam. Near Eastern minds had admits the practice was spotty and always respected the founders of the inconsistent.13 Hupchick agrees with other great monotheistic faiths.17 Even earlier historians in that Ottoman policy Arabia still contained minority changed over time, but his contribution communities at the time of to the general debate is his focus on the Mohammed’s death, and it offered church as a means of enhancing cultural precedents such as treaties made with the and ethnic identity. He concludes that Christian community of Najrān (who the Church promoted Greek Orthodoxy promised aid to the Prophet).18 As the over the interests of its various religious and legal backbone of Islamic constituencies, and that the “millet” behavior, the Koran’s tolerance for system drowned out competing cultures specific religious minorities was a major under Greek ideals. factor in the attitude of Muslims to these Perhaps the most profitable conquered peoples. starting point in deciphering the status of The reality of dramatic Islamic Christians in the Ottoman Empire is the military successes also served to legal and religious traditions regarding promote a policy of conciliation to religious minorities the Ottomans conquered peoples. The origin of Islamic inherited from early Islamic law and tolerance for the practice of other practice. Early Islamic law took care to seems to stem from the very impart a special status to people of earliest period of Muslim conquest, as monotheistic, confessional faiths such as the numerically inferior Muslim Christianity. The Koran’s statement that found themselves needing security “there is no constraint in religion” was precautions over their new subjects.19 generally interpreted as an The contemporary Muslim Balādhurī encouragement of tolerance towards shows a striking example of the reality specific religions, primarily Christians of conquest in the accounts of invasions and Jews.14 A later passage encouraged reaching into India. Infidel religions not Muslims to fight against those exempted from combat unto death (such unbelievers, but made a specific as Buddhism and especially Hinduism) exception for those who had been given were theoretically supposed to be either “the Book”, who would only be made to converted or killed, but this was not the pay a tax in recognition of their case in India. The account reports that, “humiliated position”.15 C.E. Bosworth while some massacres did occur, for the describes this as a vision of a contract most part conquered Indians were between conquered unbelievers and accorded the same dhimma minority

12 Dennis P. Hupchick, "Orthodoxy and 16 C.E. Bosworth, “The Concept of Dhimma in Bulgarian Ethnic Awareness Under Ottoman Early Islam,” in Braude and Lewis, Christians Rule, 1396-1762," Nationalities Papers 21, no. 2 and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The (1993): 75. Functioning of a Plural Society, 41. 13 Hupchick, 77. 17 Bosworth, 37. 14 Braude, 4-5. 18 Bosworth, 42. 15 Braude, 5. 19 Braude, 5.

status, as were Christians and Jews, minorities than traditional Islamic states. acknowledging the superiority of Islam Kunt points out the basic dividing line in and performing other duties for Muslims the emerging Ottoman state as a in exchange for religious freedom. functional distinction between those who Bosworth adds that over the years the pay taxes and those who did not - in practice of extending dhimma status to other words, a distinction between even polytheistic Hindus became civilian and military/official.22 He cites normal.20 The dramatically successful the fifteenth century Ottoman chronicler and speedy Muslim conquests promoted Asikpasazâde who relates that as certain policies of religious freedom to Christian towns were captured, Christian minorities for practical reasons as well soldiers thought trustworthy received as religious. The Ottoman experience grants of well-appointed fiefs or were would incorporate both religious and placed (along with Muslims) in practical aspects of this tradition. fortresses.23 Inalcik attributes the The Ottoman dynasty was adoption of Christian elites and military formed at the turn of the fourteenth men into Ottoman service as part of the century, and differed in some notable expansionist doctrine of the dynasty, and respects from earlier Islamic states. adds that a conciliatory policy towards Emerging Ottoman society brought with Christians made conquest of Christian it a somewhat different worldview from lands all the easier.24 The expansionist established Islamic civilization: the character of the Ottoman state allowed Ottoman dynasty was born from hard- the pragmatism evident in Islamic policy fighting frontier warlords, and this towards conquered Christians to frontier identity remained an important predominate over strict Islamic law. part of Ottoman consciousness.21 Conquest and expansion were not remained an insecure the only considerations, however, and battleground, and as late as the fifteenth the Ottoman attitudes towards Christians century the dynasty flirted with collapse. also reflected a desire to expand dynastic The insecure birth of the Ottoman power and prestige through the Janissary dynasty, along with its vibrant youth as corps and the devshirme system. This an expanding state, combined to give it a novel Ottoman system involved taking different perspective on Christian captured prisoners and village recruits of young boys and molding them into Ottoman elite soldiers and 20 Bosworth, 43. This practice was in conformity to the attitudes of contemporary religions: administrators. Mansel cites Ottoman Bosworth, 37, adds that that few Near Eastern court sources as identifying the main had sought or achieved religious motivation for the devshirme as one of exclusiveness. Runciman, 77, finds evidence distrust of rival Turks and a desire to that the Sassanid and Persian empires gave centralize dynastic power through using religious minorities considerable autonomy and 25 that it was traditional to group minorities by officials with no political connections. religion. 21İ. Metin Kunt, “Transformation of Zimmi into 22 Kunt, 58. Askerî”, in Braude and Lewis, Christians and 23 Kunt, 59. Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of 24 Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire; the a Plural Society, 56. Kunt, 59, relays a Classical age, 1300-1600 (New York: Praeger characterization on the Empire by the renowned Publishers, 1973), 13. Halil Inalcik as a dynastic empire with the lone 25 Philip Mansel, Constantinople: City of the goal of furthering its dominion. World's Desire, 1453-1924, First U.S. Edition.

This explanation seems more plausible Constantinople and the securance of than any religious motive, especially as Balkan areas, the Ottomans faced a the Ottomans did not crack down on novel challenge in ruling an entire region Anatolian Christian minorities when with a majority Christian persuasion. given an excellent opportunity.26 Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II Moreover, the inescapable reality was attempted to solve this problem through that devshirme recruitment violated lines similar to existing Islamic practice. traditional Christian rights, an indication Mehmed extended the so-called millet that the Ottomans viewed Islamic system of internal autonomy to include principles as secondary considerations.27 the Orthodox Patriarch as head of self- The creation of this uniquely Ottoman government for all Christians, system further illustrates that the early responsible for taxation, justice, and Ottoman dynasty was fully able to break other matters.29 This decision was not from Islamic traditions when it suited necessarily a foregone choice – the dynastic interests. sultan initially turned to Grand Duke The Ottoman conquest of Loukas Notaras for political leadership, Constantinople in 1453 consummated and could have simply left the the fate of Balkan Christians already Patriarchate seat vacant.30 The official under Ottoman domination since the mid establishment of the Eucemenical fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. Patriarchate as head of minority The larger coherent Christian society Christians was quite a shrewd choice – it present in the Balkans and the quick gave the central government one pace of conquest relative to Anatolia accessible figure to deal with, and served combined to leave the Orthodox Church to pre-empt possible Roman Catholic well entrenched, and Islam a distinct influence in the Balkans.31 Mehmed’s minority.28 After the capture of raising of the Patriarchate was symbolically powerful, but fundamentally built upon established Islamic tradition. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), 18. Mansel adds only five out of 48 grand viziers since 1453 were ethnically Turkish. 26 Runciman. 32. Runciman mentions that while the Ottomans allowed absentee bishops to return which corresponded to its far higher rate of to their sees, most chose not to despite pleas conversion to Islam. from the Patriarch. This suggests a certain lack 29 Runciman, 167. of government concern early in the dynasty for 30 Braude, 77. – Grand Duke Notaras was the promoting the Islamic faith. leading Byzantine civil official in the city. He 27 Kunt, 60-61. The official justification for was executed for disloyalty a few days after its devshirme only arrived around 1500. fall. Mansell, 9, Points out the Sultan could have 28 Speris Vryonis, Jr., “Religious Change and left the see vacant, and that his choice was a Continuity in the Balkans and Anatolia”, in diehard opponent of the proclaimed Roman Speris Vryonis Jr., Islam and Cultural Change in Catholic union. the Middle Ages: [4. Giorgio Levi Della Vida 31 Arnakis, 236-7, mentions the convenience of Biennial Conference, May 11-13, 1973, Near nominating the respected but anti-union monk Eastern Center, Univ. of Calif., Los Gennadios, and points out the ceremonial Angeles](Los Angeles: University of California implication of Ottoman Empire as Byzantine Press, 1975). Vryonis, 129, 133, 137-8, points successor state. Union between Rome and out that the Balkans possessed self conscious Constantinople had technically been proclaimed Christian cultural entities, and that they had not in the Council of Florence, but few clergy suffered the long period of warfare in Anatolia accepted it.

The empowerment of the showed his concern for both the Patriarchate of Constantinople in economic vitality of his cities and particular was in large measure a change pluralism within them.37 The new from Byzantine realities. The responsibilities for the church were thus Patriarchate prior to 1453 had always assumed under a ruler at least partially been first among equals with other friendly, a fact which enabled them to be egalitarian bishoprics, and had never assumed more smoothly. approached the status of the as a The resulting arrangement and its power broker and arbiter.32 The Church legal features are a matter of some was forced to invent secular institutions controversy. Braude’s analysis of the for services previously performed by the term millet commonly used to describe it civil government, resulting in a severe shows that the word, meaning religious strain on its limited resources.33 Despite community, was never applied to these problems, the Orthodox Church Christian communities in this timeframe inherited increased prestige from its but was used solely to describe either official role in self-government.34 The Islam itself, or the communities of fairly cosmopolitan outlook of Sultan prestigious foreign Christians the Mehmed II - who went so far in his love Ottomans wished to woo. The of Greek to arrangement was also probably informal commission a biography of himself in and not legally binding.38 The resulting the same format and on the same style agreement did, however, feature an paper as his copy of Arian’s life of Alexander- helped enable the church to 37 adapt.35 Mehmed’s concern for creating Robert Mantran, “Foreign Merchants and the Minorities in during the Sixteenth and a cosmopolitan capital was a genuine 36 Seventeenth Centuries”, in Braude and Lewis, offense to some Turks. His readiness to Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The forcibly deport peoples of all flavors to Functioning of a Plural Society, 128. Runciman, populate it when economic inducements 168, calls co-operation of the “essential” failed – Greek Christians, Jews, to the Imperial economy, as the Turks were not adept at commerce, seamanship, and preferred an , and Anatolian Turks – urban to an agricultural lifestyle. Heath W. Lowry, Studies in Defterology: Ottoman Society 32 Runciman, 9. in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries 33 Runciman, 206-7. Runciman sees this (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1992), 57, agrees that requirement as a large factor in the inability of the policy of forced deportation reflected not the Church to provide tolerable levels of only an awareness on Mehmed on the education to much of its priesthood. Education importance of trade and commerce, but the care and a Judicial system are two examples of with which he introduced missing religious services now required. groups suggests an interest in developing 34 Mansel, 10, identifies a diminishing cosmopolitan centers. conversion rate to Islam among subject 38 Braude, 70, 74, summarizes that the lack of an Christians after this change. explicit term for internal Christians in such an 35 Mansel, 6. Inalcik, 89, points out Mehmed organized beauracracy as the Ottoman suggests officially termed himself sovereign of the the absence of an instutionalized policy towards Byzantines (Romans) and Muslims. Arnakis, Christian. Runciman, 170, adds that its unlikely 247, notes that he supervised gifts of cash to the any new constitution-type document was ever church until 1467. written down, as the general provisions of such 36 Mansel, 24, reports that for anonymous arrangements for religious minorities were well historians writing in simple Turkish, known enough already. Braude, 79, adds a Constantinople was a city of “torments and search of church archives in 1519 found no legal distresses”. document spelling out its rights.

understood relationship: Christians Christian allies were incorporated to would be taxed more heavily than help subdue the region until normal Muslims, were faced with restrictions on Ottoman administrative practices could gaining property, saw lawsuits involving be put in place.43 Kunt points out that Muslims tried in Muslim courts, and had while these Christian soldiers often the danger of the devshirme involved as converted, it was an individual choice, well.39 Legal contests involving and that some preferred to assert their Christians and Muslims were further leading place by changing their names tilted in the latter’s direction as but retaining their Christian religion.44 Christians could not legally give The reality that at least some Christian testimony, as their failure to recognize soldiers were incorporated into the the true light of Islam was felt to be Ottoman military structure following proof of defective morality.40 These conquest speaks volumes as to the precepts, while probably not officially relative autonomy and favorable written down, were understood and conditions for Christianity under this applicable to the subject Christian period. Mihailovic, a former Christian population. serving with the Sultan’s army in the The pressures of rapid Ottoman mid 1460s, supports this supposition expansion in this period also resulted in through his praise of Ottoman justice in a surprising tolerance of Christians in general and in practice.45 The realities of quasi-official state positions. Christian such rapid expansion as the empire military men who the Ottomans felt experienced under Mehmed II led to a could be loyal were particular fairly liberal policy towards at least beneficiaries during this period of 41 overstretched Ottoman resources . Lowry’s analysis of tax receipts for 43 Lowry, 143. newly conquered Greek areas in 1461 44 Kunt, 59-60. Kunt cites the example of two shows that timars (Ottoman fiefs) were timar holding brothers converting while a third granted to not only Muslims who had remained Christian, and an example of a man changing his name and being referred to as assisted in the conquest but also to local 42 “Kafin Timuntas”, or Timuntas the infidel, Christian lords . Lowry suspects these signifying his retention of his native religion. 45 Konstanty MichaŽowicz, Memoirs of a Janissary (Ann Arbor: Published under the 39 Runciman, 79. Runciman, 189, relates that the auspices of the Joint Committee on Eastern experience of 1520 when was dissuaded Europe, American Council of Learned Societies, from converting all Constantinople’s churches by the Dept. of Slavic Languages and when reminded of their quasi legal rights showed Literatures, University of Michigan, 1975), 29, these precepts could protect Christians also. 188. Early in his account the author praises the 40 Bosworth, 49. “great justice” of the heathens, and later on 41 Kunt, 55. Kunt shows the practice of relates how Christian peasants ordered to provide incorporating Christian soldiers persisted as late logistical support for the army by following it as the mid 1500s. and selling food were always given fair prices. 42 Lowry, 140-1. Lowry actually examines the The translator has doubts on whether Mihailovic region in an around Trebizond, located in personally witnessed some of the material in said northern Anatolia. However, Trebizond was a chapters, but the latter example is one he may recent conquest (1461), and remained a strong well have. If the details cannot be asserted as center of Orthodox religion and Byzantine authentic, the general impression of a Christian culture during the preceding Turkish conquest of who ends his memoirs with an exhortation for a Anatolia. Its conditions thus approximate the war to liberate Christians is a very favorable one Balkan experience fairly well. as far as Ottoman fairness to minorities goes.

some Christians in recently conquered relatively pressure free experience for areas. Christians and the church. Information on Christian tax The turn to consolidation by receipts also shows an interesting pattern successive Ottoman sultans witnessed a in terms of Ottoman relaxation of reversal of some of these trends. restrictions on Christians. Lowry’s Trabzon revisited shows that by the 1486 analysis of receipts in the Balkan district receipt the local Christian auxiliaries had of Radifolo (97.5 % Orthodox) shows been transferred to Albania in return for that the average tax rate per Christian Janissaries and some other Christian household increased 31.8% between timar holders, but by 1515 all the timar 1465 and 1478.46 Lowry notes that in holders are Muslims and fully half are 1465 Muslim households, and those of Janissaries, and a typical Ottoman new converts to Islam, were exempt pattern of administration emerges.49 from a major tax (the resm-i cift). Mihailovic’s claim that the sultan However, he finds that in 1478 the few garrisons all his fortresses with Muslim families that converted and the Janissaries or government forces is thus immigrant Muslim households found belatedly satisfied.50 The fate of their exemptions removed and were incorporated Christian auxiliary cavalry forced to pay the tax, approximating and of timar holders in Trebizond is their burden to that of Christian repeated throughout the newly families.47 This suggests that an active conquered Balkan regions – strong in economic promotion of Islam was halted numbers after the conquest, Christian due to the need for revenue to fund the military forces have largely disappeared continuing Ottoman campaigns. The by 1515 as the Ottoman government burden of the devshirme also appears to finds itself able to absorb its conquests.51 have been borne by prisoners of war The consolidation of Ottoman authority, rather than subject Christians during this evident here to the disadvantage of expansion48 Overall, the problems and empowered Christians, resulted in pressures of conquest likely resulted in a changes elsewhere as well. The pressure on Christians in the capital was reflective of a continuing one 46 Lowry, 167. Lowry examines tahrin defters, on Christianity in the cities. Ottoman which are taxes due to local landlords. These Muslim influence was highly focused in have inherent limitations in not mentioning taxes urban areas. Out of a Balkan population paid to the sultan; however, they are appropriate for a primarily agricultural focus and for 80% Christian and only 19 % Muslim by intertemporal comparisons. The figures I use around 1520, 85% of total Muslim here are his conversions of the tax rate in homes were concentrated in 10 out of 28 Ottoman currency (which was devalued) into the Balkan districts.52 Furthermore, nine of more stable florin – thus, the effective increase in the twelve most important urban centers taxes on the buying power of Ottoman subjects. 47 Lowry, 173-174. in the Balkans had substantially more 48 Mihailovic, 157, mentions that the devshirme Muslims than Christians already by the system used captured prisoners of war first and year 1478, a point which graphically avoided taking subject boys if the former haul was big enough – while again the evidence that he saw such practices first hand is not 49 Lowry, 140-143. compelling, the fast pace of Ottoman conquest 50 Mihailovic, 151, for his comment. would logically reduce the pressure of devshirme 51 Lowry, 146. on subject Balkan Christians. 52 Vryonis, 130-131.

documents that cities were the focal numerous Christian churches in centers of Islamic power.53 Case studies Constantinople were converted into in Saloniki and Trabzon confirm that the mosques.57 The story of church Muslim population in each was takeovers was similar for most any town overwhelmingly forced migrants54. the Turks settled, excepting only purely Focused government efforts to move Christian districts.58 However, churches Muslims to Trabzon continued at least and in rural areas were left well into the first half of the sixteenth largely untouched. Monasteries were century.55 These findings show a focused generally allowed to maintain (with tax and ongoing effort by the Ottoman exemptions) holdings in physical government to maintain a particular proximity to the , while balance in important cities, one featuring absentee holdings were stripped or minority religions but as importantly heavily taxed.59 In one case, 13 of 15 maintaining a Muslim majority.56 The property confiscations in the Trabzon impact of this focus manifested itself in and adjoining Macuka valley district very different experiences Orthodoxy in were from the city itself, while the two rural areas as compared to the cities. most important monasteries in the valley The conversion of churches into lost no property.60 Even architectural mosques gives an excellent indication of examinations of churches during this the different experiences in rural and city period find that large churches matching Christian life. Even during the relatively the scale of medieval Byzantine cosmopolitan rule of Mehmed II, churches were “inevitably” built away from urban areas, while the more

53 advanced dome structure was found only Vryonis, 132. The three Christian exceptions 61 were (99.5 % Christian), Nicopolos (62.3 in rural areas. All these findings %), and Trikala (41.5 versus 36.3 Muslim). The city of Saloniki was had a small Muslim margin 57 Arnakis, 245. Arnakis notes 12 churches over Christians (25.2 to 20.5), but was unique in converted during the lifetime of Patriarch having a majority Jewish population. Mansell, Gennadius, who is thought to have died in 1473. 48, notes that the population of Constantinople 58 Runciman, 192. retained a steady 58/42 Muslim/Christian ratio 59 Lowry, 250. Lowry examines monasteries in for much of Ottoman history, a feature he Mt. Athos and the Matzuoka region near ascribes to deliberate government policy. Trabzon. Absentee holdings could be in cities or 54 Lowry, 52-54. These two cities are important countryside, but monasteries were located as former major Byzantine centers, along with predominantly in the latter. Lowry, 241-2, the capital. further reports that Mt. Athos itself, with its rural 55 Lowry, 55. Lowry identifies discrete stages in concentration of 20 monasteries, enjoyed a very the Muslim repopulation of Trabzon in particular favorably low tax rate while its varied holdings (having surrendered, it was a viable, intact, but were taxed much more greatly. Greek city after its subjugation). First, free land 60 Beldiceau, as referenced in Lowry, Studies in grants were offered to encourage voluntary Defterology: Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth settlement – this attracted some Muslims, but not and Sixteenth Centuries, 154-7. Beldiceau gentry or skilled labor. Secondly, specific generalizes that urban monasteries in this individuals were deported for leadership reasons comparison lost all their properties, while major and to maintain a social balance. Third, groups rural ones did not. of craftsmen were deported. 61 Curcic, “The Byzantine Legacy in 56 The importance of this balance can be seen in Architecture in the Ottoman Balkans”, in Lowell particular attention paid to importing Christians Clucas, The Byzantine legacy in Eastern Europe to essentially empty Constantinople, and (Boulder; New York: East European Muslims to perfectly healthy but Monographs; Distributed by Columbia overwhelmingly Greek Trabzon. University Press, 1988), 61, 67-68. Curcic, 61,

suggest an Ottoman move against not competitors to of Islamic ones in terms religious buildings in general, but of grandeur or opulence, but clearly specifically ones located in urban areas secondary. or with particular wealth. These The status of Ottoman conversions are a telling sign of the Christians changed over time, and would much more trying Christian religious continue to change during the experience in Ottoman cities. forthcoming Islamic religious revival, The significance of these but there remains discernable a broad policies towards Christian religious view of Christian status in the actions of institutions is great. Mosques served as Ottoman authorities in this period.64 icons of Imperial legitimacy, and Particular treatment of Christians varied converting opulent churches into Muslim according to changing situations in the building proclaimed the power and Ottoman state.65 However, the overall prestige of the dynasty.62 Moreover, view of the Orthodox Christian these actions reinforced the subjugation relationship -à-vis victorious Islam of Christianity to Islam, a focus well remained constant. Christians were reflected by the Ottoman mania for offered a social contract, but one that church bells.63 The erasure of competing permanently marked them as second- religious sounds asserted the subjugation class citizens. The Ottoman relationship of other religions to Islam and the with Christians delineated particular superiority of Islam over them, as did the limits for them in experiencing their practice of confiscating high profile faith and limits to their rights as citizens. monastery wealth. While Christian While acceptance of an inoffensive and religious buildings were allowed to less visible Christianity brought a place remain for the most part, Ottoman in Islamic society, and the particular efforts ensured they would not be details of that place changed over time, Ottoman attitudes ensured Orthodox Christians’ place in their empire notes that the vast majority of churches were remained secondary. allowed to continue in their original function, but that then again the vast majority of these were of relatively modest scale. Curcic, 67-8, also Author’s Note suggests that Turkish regulations played a role in church construction, noting the proliferation of Turkish occupied names and domes after the new Balkan nations declared regions are used, except where a source independent. His evidence suggests opulent urban churches were most likely to be converted; cites the Byzantine or name. plain, rural churches least likely. Anatolia comprises modern day . 62 Howard Crane, “The Ottoman Sultan’s Trabzon is Trebizond, a city in North- Mosques: Icons of Imperial Legitimacy”, in Eastern Anatolia. Saloniki is Irene A. Bierman, Rifa'at Ali Abou-El-Haj, and , a city in the Thrace region Donald Preziosi, The Ottoman City and its Parts : Urban Structure and Social Order (New Rochelle, N.Y.: A.D. Caratzas, 1991), 173-243, 64 See Kunt, 63, for more on the Islamic religious offers a look at the importance of mosques to the revival. Ottoman dynasty. 63 Curcic, 68-69. Curcic classifies Turkish 65 Braude, 438. Braude points out that Ottoman reaction against bells as supremely harsh and archival sources show an unsurprising trend: A rigorously enforced. He says the only surviving need to reinforce restrictions on Christians was belfries did so because they were converted into apparently felt in times of public distress and mosques. wartime.

of modern day . Constantinople is Haddad, Robert M. referred to by the Ottomans and by "Constantinople Over , 1516- Turks today as Istanbul – I’ve retained 1724: Patriarchal Politics in the Ottoman the Byzantine name because my focus Era." Journal of Ecclesiastical History lies during its transition from Byzantine [Great Britain] 41, no. 2 (1990): 217- to Turkish capital. I also refer to the 238. author of “Memoirs of a Janissary” in a Latin form (as Mihailov) for simplicity’s Hupchick, Dennis P. "Orthodoxy sake. Any references to “Christians” are and Bulgarian Ethnic Awareness Under meant to indicate specifically Orthodox Ottoman Rule, 1396-1762."Nationalities Christians – Armenians had their own Papers 21, no. 2 (1993): 75-93. patriarchate, and are outside the scope of this paper. The Near East refers to the Inalcik, Halil. The Ottoman modern day Middle East, Iraq, and . Empire; the Classical Age, 1300-1600. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973. References Lowry, Heath W. Studies in Arnakis, G. Georgiades. "The Defterology: Ottoman Society in the Greek Church of Constantinople and the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Ottoman Empire." The Journal of Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1992. Modern History 24, no. 3 (1952): 235- 250. "The Tribute of Children, 1493." July 1998 [cited 2004]. Available from Bierman, Irene A., Rifa'at Ali http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/14 Abou-El-Haj, and Donald Preziosi. The 93janissaries.html. Ottoman City and its Parts : Urban Structure and Social Order. New Mansel, Philip. Constantinople: Rochelle, N.Y.: A.D. Caratzas, 1991. City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924. First U.S. Edition ed. New York: St. Braude, Benjamin, and Bernard Martin's Press, 1995. Lewis, eds. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Mazower, Mark. The Balkans : A Plural Society. New York: Holmes & Short History. New York: Modern Meier Publishers, Inc., 1982. Library, 2000.

Clucas, Lowell. The Byzantine MichaŽowicz, Konstanty. Legacy in Eastern Europe. Boulder; Memoirs of a Janissary. Ann Arbor: New York: East European Monographs; Published under the auspices of the Joint Distributed by Columbia University Committee on Eastern Europe, Press, 1988. American Council of Learned Societies, by the Dept. of Slavic Languages and "The Turkish Letters, 1555- Literatures, University of Michigan, 1562." July 1998 [cited 2004]. Available 1975. from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/15 Runciman, Steven. The Great 55busbecq.html. Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the

Greek War of Independence. London: Cambridge U.P., 1968.

Vryonis Jr., Speris. Islam and Cultural Change in the Middle Ages: [4. Giorgio Levi Della Vida Biennial Conference, may 11-13, 1973, Near Eastern Center, Univ. of Calif., Los Angeles]. Edited by Near Eastern Center, University of California. Los Angeles ed. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975.