"In accordance with this [right to act], whenever some one of the
infidel parents or some other should oppose the giving up of his son
for the Janiccaries, he is immediately hanged from his doorsill, his
blood being deemed unworthy."
Turkish firman, 1601
"...The Turks have built several fortresses in my kingdom and are
very kind to the country folk. They promise freedom to every peasant
who converts to Islam."
Bosnian King Stefan Tomasevic to Pope Pius II
"...The Porte treated him (the patriarch) as part of the Ottoman
political apparatus. As a result, he had certain legally protected
privileges. The Patriarch travelled in 'great splendour' and police
protection was provided by the Janiccaries. His horse and saddle
were fittingly embroidered, and at the saddle hung a small sword as
a symbol of the powers bestowed on him by the Sultan."
Dusan Kasic, "The Serbian Church under the Turks", Belgrade, 1969
Within the space of 500 years, southeast Europe has undergone two
paradigmatic shifts. First, from Christian independence to Islamic
subjugation (a gradual process which consumed two centuries) and
then, in the 19th century, from self-determination through religious
affiliation to nationalism. The Christians of the Balkan were easy
prey. They were dispirited peasantry, fragmented, prone to
internecine backstabbing and oppressive regimes. The new Ottoman
rulers treated both people and land as their property. They enslaved
some of their prisoners of war (under the infamous "pencik" clause),
exiled thousands and confiscated their lands and liquidated the
secular political elites in Thrace, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania.
The resulting vacuum of leadership was filled by the Church. Thus,
paradoxically, it was Islam and its excesses that made the Church
the undisputed shepherd of the peoples of the Balkan, a position it
did not enjoy before. The new rulers did not encourage conversions
to their faith for fear of reducing their tax base - non-Moslem
"zimmis" (the Qur'an's "People of the Book") paid special (and
heavy) taxes to the treasury and often had to bribe corrupt
officials to survive.
Still, compared to other Ottoman exploits (in Anatolia, for
instance), the conquest of the Balkan was a benign affair. Cities
remained intact, the lands were not depopulated and the
indiscriminately ferocious nomadic tribesmen that usually
accompanied the Turkish forces largely stayed at home. The Ottoman
bureaucracy took over most aspects of daily life soon after the
military victories, bringing with it the leaden stability that was
its hallmark. Indeed, populations were dislocated and re-settled as
a matter of policy called "sorgun". Yet such measures were intended
mainly to quell plangent rebelliousness and were applied mainly to
the urban minority (for instance, in Constantinople).
The Church was an accomplice of the Turkish occupiers. It was a part
of the Ottoman system of governance and enjoyed both its protection
and its funding. It was leveraged by the Turk sultans in their quest
to pacify their subjects. Mehmet II bestowed upon the Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate, its bishops and clergy great powers. The trade off was
made explicit in Mehmet's edicts: the Church accepted the earthly
sovereignty of the sultan - and he, in turn, granted them tolerance,
protection and even friendship. The Ottoman religious-legal code,
the Seriat, recognized the Christian's right to form their own
religiously self-governing communities.
These communities were not confined to the orderly provision of
worship services. They managed communal property as well. Mehmet's
benevolence towards the indigents was so legendary that people
wrongly attributed to him the official declaration of a "Millet i
Rum" (Roman, or Greek, nation) and the appointment of Gennadios as
patriarch of the Orthodox Church (which only an episcopal synod
could do).
The Ottoman Empire was an amazing hybrid. As opposed to popular
opinion it was not a religious entity. The ruling elite included
members of all religions. Thus, one could find Christian "askeri "
(military or civil officials) and Muslim "reaya" ("flock" of
taxpayers). It is true that Christians paid the arbitrarily set
"harac" (or, less commonly, "cizye") in lieu of military service.
Even the clergy were not exempt (they even assisted in tax
collection). But both Christians and Muslims paid the land tax, for
instance. And, as the fairness, transparency and predictability of
the local taxmen deteriorated - both Muslims and Christians
complained.
The main problem of the Ottoman Empire was devolution - not
centralization. Local governors and tax collectors had too much
power and the sultan was too remote and disinterested or too weak
and ineffective. The population tried to get Istanbul MORE involved
- not less so.
The population was financially fleeced as much by the Orthodox
Church as it was by the sultan. A special church-tax was levied on
the Christian reaya and its proceeds served to secure the lavish
lifestyles of the bishops and the patriarch. In true mob style,
church functionaries divided the loot with Ottoman officials in an
arrangement known as "peskes". Foreign powers contributed to the war
chests of various candidates, thus mobilizing them to support pro-
Catholic or pro-Protestant political stances and demands. The church
was a thoroughly corrupt, usurious and politicized body which
contributed greatly to the ever increasing misery of its flock. It
was a collaborator in the worst sense of the word.
But the behaviour of the church was one part of the common betrayal
by the elite of the Balkan lands. Christian landowners volunteered
to serve in the Ottoman cavalry ("sipahis") in order to preserve
their ownership. The Ottoman rulers conveniently ignored the laws
prohibiting "zimmis" to carry weapons. Until 1500, the "sipahis"
constituted the bulk of the Ottoman forces in the Balkan and their
mass conversion to Islam was a natural continuation of their
complicity. Other Christians guarded bridges or mountain passes for
a tax exemption ("derbentci"). Local, Turkish-trained militias
("armatoles") fought mountain-based robber gangs (Serbian "hayduks",
Bulgarian "haiduts", Greek "klephts"). The robbers attacked Turkish
caravans with the same frequency and zeal that they sacked Christian
settlements. The "armatoles" resisted them by day and joined them by
night. But it was perfectly acceptable to join Turkish initiatives
such as this.
The Balkan remained overwhelmingly Christian throughout the Ottoman
period. Muslim life was an urban phenomenon both for reasons of
safety and because only the cities provided basic amenities. Even in
the cities, though, the communities lived segregated in "mahalles"
(quarters). Everyone collaborated in public life but the "mahalles"
were self-sufficient affairs with the gamut of services - from hot
baths to prayer services - available "in-quarter". Gradually, the
major cities, situated along the trade routes, became Moslem.
Skopje, Sarajevo and Sofia all had sizeable Moslem minorities.
Thus, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the picture that
emerges is one of an uneasy co-habitation in the cities and a
Christian rural landscape. The elites of the Balkan - church,
noblemen, warriors - all defected and collaborated with the former
"enemy". The local populace was the victim of usurious taxes,
coercively applied. The central administration shared the loot with
its local representatives and with the indigenous elites - the
church and the feudal landed gentry. It was a cosy and pragmatic
arrangement that lasted for centuries.
Yet, the seeds of Ottoman bestiality and future rebellion were sown
from the very inception of this empire-extending conquest. The
"devsirme" tax was an example of the fragility of the Turkish veneer
of humanity and enlightened rule. Christian sons were kidnapped,
forcibly converted to Islam and trained as fighters in the fearsome
Janiccary Corps (the palace Guards). They were never to see their
families and friends again.
Exemptions from this barbarous practice were offered only to select
communities which somehow contributed to Ottoman rule in the Balkan.
Christian women were often abducted by local Ottoman dignitaries.
and the custom of the "kepin", allowed Moslems to "buy" a Christian
daughter off her husband on a "temporary" basis. The results of such
a union were raised as Moslems.
And then there were the mass conversions of Christians to Islam.
These conversions were very rarely the results of coercion or
barbarous conduct. On the contrary, by shrinking the tax base and
the recruitment pool, conversion were unwelcome and closely
scrutinized by the Turks. But to convert was such an advantageous
and appealing act that the movement bordered on mass hysteria.
Landowners converted to preserve their title to the land. "Sipahis"
converted to advance in the ranks of the military. Christian
officials converted to maintain their officialdom. Ordinary folk
converted to avoid onerous taxes. Christian traders converted to
Islam to be able to testify in court in case of commercial
litigation. Converted Moslems were allowed to speak Arabic or their
own language, rather than the cumbersome and elaborate formal
Turkish. Christians willingly traded eternal salvation for earthly
benefits. And, of course, death awaited those who recanted (like the
Orthodox "New Martyrs", who discovered their Christian origins,
having been raised as Moslems).
Perhaps this was because, in large swathes of the Balkan,
Christianity never really took hold. It was adopted by the peasant
as a folk religion - as was Islam later. In Bosnia, for instance,
Muslims and Christians were virtually indistinguishable. They prayed
in each other's shrines, celebrated each other's holidays and
adopted the same customs. Muslim mysticism (the Sufi orders)
appealed to many sophisticated urban Christians. Heretic cults (like
the Bogomils) converted en masse. Intermarriage flourished, mainly
between Muslim men (who could not afford the dowry payable to a
Muslim woman) and Christian women (who had to pay a dowry to her
Muslim husband's family). Marrying a Christian woman was a lucrative
business proposition.
And, then, of course, there was the Moslem birth rate. With four
women and a pecuniary preference for large families - Moslem out-
bred Christians at all times. This trend is most pronounced today
but it was always a prominent demographic fact.
But the success of Islam to conquer the Balkan, rule it, convert its
population and prevail in it - had to do more with the fatal flaws
of Balkan Christianity than with the appeal and resilience of Islam
and its Ottoman rendition. In the next chapter I will attempt to
ponder the complex interaction between Catholicism and Orthodox
Christianity as it was manifested in Croatia and Bosnia, the border
lands between the Habsburg and the Ottoman empires and between
"Rome" and "Byzantium". I will then explore the variance in the
Ottoman attitudes towards various Christian communities and the
reasons underlying this diversity of treatment modalities.