Orthodox Christians preferred Ottoman rule because it shielded them from Latin interference.

Evidence

The millet system may have been another factor as to why Orthodox (and particularly the clergy) preferred the Muslim rulers to the Latins. The millet system allowed for each religious community within the city to have their own courts and religious hierarchy and educational systems. For example, for the Jews a chief haham was appointed, the Armenians were appointed a catholicos to lead them, and the Orthodox were appointed a patriarch who would administer that section’s affairs. All the religious leaders fell under the personal protection of the Sultan and no other part of the population or government could infringe upon them. 25 This secular form of protection may have been the hidden hope of the Orthodox clergy in the face of the invasion. A Muslim rule is more foreign to that of a Christian rule, but the Muslim Sultan would remain a material ruler and not a spiritual imposer. Thus, the Orthodox church retained virtually all the traditional apparatus of their administration without having to compromise and alter a part of their beliefs or practice. As the millet system was a contractual relationship, the Orthodox only had to pay a tax in order to have their right to independence and practice Christianity the way they wished. No papal authorities would monitor or censor Orthodox doctrines; in this regard the Ottomans were a convenient buffer against Latin interference. — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 42

Categorization

• XREF: Cuts against the usual framing of conquest as pure oppression; parallels Ottoman religious tolerance vs. Catholic inquisitorial control also seen in Reformation-era politics. — connects to: The schism within Christianity was perceived as a greater threat than that of a foreign invasion; the Orthodox were relatively receptive towards having the Ottomans as material rulers in contrast to the Latins.; Orthodox authorities perceived an invasion by the Latins as worse, for they would not afford them autonomy which might be hoped under Muslims. The land might remain under Christian rule, but the Orthodox churches would have to yield to papal supremacy. While the Muslim conquest might lead to a change of the head of state, the churches would not be forced to make any doctrinal changes or alter their church hierarchy.; Joseph Bryennius, a Byzantine theologian said, ‘Let no one be deceived by delusive hopes that the Italian allied troops will sooner or later come to us. But if they do pretend to rise to defend us, they will take arms in order to destroy our city, race, and name.’ The military aid of the Latin might push off the Ottoman threat, but this assistance would have far worse consequence than those the rule of the Ottomans would have. Indeed, the Latins would require doctrinal subordination and recognition of papal superiority. (+17 more)
• QUESTION: Worth verifying how uniformly the millet system’s protections actually held across Ottoman history vs. as an idealized founding arrangement.

Broader Connections

• Orthodox clergy preferred Ottoman rule over Latin rule during the fall of Constantinople. #corroborates (0.90) — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 60
• Christian communities sometimes preferred Muslim rule to Latin Christian dominion. #corroborates (0.85) — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 54
• The essay critically assesses the contemporary scholarship on Christian Islamophobia, arguing that it often overlooks the internal Christian divisions and portrays Christianity as a monolithic… #expands (0.85)
• Christians preferred Ottoman tolerance over Catholic persecution #corroborates (0.70) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 75
• Ottomans were seen as a political threat rather than a religious one #qualifies (0.40) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 76