On the eve of the conquest, the commander-inchief of the Byzantine navy said, “Better the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the Latin [Pope]”. 1 The Orthodox realized any call for Latin help would necessarily require doctrinal compromise as well. Rather than submit to the supremacy of the Pope, the Orthodox realized the city falling to Ottoman control was perhaps not the worst outcome.

XREF: Connects to the broader history of the Great Schism of 1054 and the doctrinal rift between Eastern and Western Christianity.

The heart of the tension was a theological one. The Orthodox were firm on their creed and we will come to see how they refused any compromise with the Latin West. Even at the pleas of the Byzantine Emperor and the presence of the Ottomans at the walls, the Orthodox clergy refused to bend to the doctrine of the West. They knew the Ottomans, despite being of a foreign religion, would require no such theological compromise.

XREF: Connects to general historical dynamics where religious doctrine trumps pragmatic political alliance, echoing patterns seen in other religious schisms.

This schism between Orthodox and Latin Christianity is significant for any discussion of the historical dynamics of Christianity. In contemporary scholarship about the history of Christian Islamophobia, many authors when describing the period largely ignore this inter- Christian tension. Some authors of this bent are Anidjar, Kumar, Todd, and Allen. For instance, in Anidjar’s book The Jew, the Arab: A History of the Enemy, he argues his case with the claim from another author that Muslims were a “common enemy” against all of Christendom (Anidjar 2003).

XREF: Connects to debates about Christian-Muslim relations and how internal Christian divisions are overlooked in scholarship on Islamophobia. QUESTION: Worth investigating how the Orthodox-Latin schism specifically altered each tradition's perception of Muslims.

I will argue that while the Byzantine Orthodox and Latin West both viewed the Muslims as an enemy, the idea of theological compromise with the Latins was seen by the Orthodox as a worse alternative to a Muslim conquest.

SEED: Potential essay angle exploring how perceived affinity shapes alliance choices — when ideologically distant rivals become preferable to proximate theological adversaries.

By presenting their views, I hope to show the Ottomans were perceived as a fatal end, but not the worst outcome possible. 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.

DEFINE: Explains how religious authorities weighed political versus doctrinal autonomy: Ottomans left church hierarchy alone while Latins demanded papal supremacy.

While the Orthodox clergy preferred the rule of the Sultan to that of the Pope, some of the laity under the fear of threat uttered, "Would that the City were delivered into the hands of the Latins who call upon Christ and the Theotokos, and not thrown into the clutches of the infidel." 12 This attitude shows the Orthodox reception to the Ottomans was not universally well received. Some still preferred the rulership of another Christian even if it meant slightly changing their doctrine of belief. Perhaps to laity who did not devote their lives to studying and defending the orthodox creed, a small change of words in one's doctrine was seen as insignificant The Ottomans were therefore not universally seen as a positive change, rather they might be a worse consequence for some Christians.

XREF: Connects to the broader historical tension between Orthodox and Catholic churches, and adds nuance to the common narrative of Christian populations welcoming Ottoman rule.

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." 13 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.

We will now mention the councils of Basel and Florence where, in response to the looming Ottoman threat, the Orthodox and Latin churches attempted to reconcile. The Emperor, in particular, saw this agreement as necessary to ensure survival. 14,15 In order to resist the onslaught of the Ottomans, he required external help, but the Papal forces and the aid of the Latin West would only come through a theological union. The Pope offered his help to the Byzantine Emperor, but only on condition they submit and agree to credal compromise. 16 In light of this hope, a council was called for, first in Basel and later in Ferrara and finally moved to Florence. During the council, three chief doctrinal issues were discussed, the issue of filioque clause, unleavened bread, and papal authority.

XREF: Connects to broader patterns of political-military concerns driving doctrinal compromise in Christian history.

At the end of the council most of the Byzantines had agreed to the compromises. One of the participants opposed to union, Patriarch Joseph, died before the negotiations finished. 17 Thus, by the conclusion of the meeting, only a singular dissenter, Mark of Ephesus, remained from the Orthodox delegation. Perhaps the most important aspect of the declaration was a recognition of the Pope as the “head of the whole church.” 18 The Emperor signed the declaration and headed back to Constantinople where he hoped the city would receive it warmly. Shortly after returning to the city, the declaration was read aloud in the Cathedral of the Assumption. However, rather than being met with a welcome reception, most of the Orthodox clergy of the city refused to submit to the new declaration and instead gathered around the singular dissenter, Mark of Ephesus. Following this cold reception, many of the signatories who were present in Florence also reneged. 19 While a union was achieved on paper in Florence, the Orthodox clergy begrudged these new doctrinal commitments and so abandoned them. The impending Ottoman threat was far less potent than yielding to Latin decrees in order to receive their aid. Saliently, the Orthodox refused to compromise with Latin authorities, despite the looming threat of invasion. The bitterness towards the Pope was greater than their enmity to the invading Sultan. Such attitudes suggest inner dissension was greater than any idea of unity against a single enemy.

SEED: Angle for an essay: why doctrinal identity can outweigh existential security threats — the Florence precedent for why forced alliances fracture under pressure. XREF: Connects to the broader schism between Eastern and Western Christianity and the enduring Orthodox suspicion of papal authority.

Eventually in 1453, despite the efforts of the Emperor to call upon last minute Latin help, the city fell to Mehmet II. His conquest was similar to the Ottoman takeover of other cities. After distributing the spoils, he called for peace with the Christians and all religious sects in the city. 20 Aside from changing the Hagia Sophia to a mosque, most other churches were granted protection and remained under Christian denomination and management. 21 Further, he allowed for the Orthodox to maintain their autonomy and appointed Gennadios II Scholarios as the new patriarch of Constantinople. 22 He was a staunch anti-unionist and saw the Pope as a far worse alternative to the Sultan. Gennadios saw the best hopes of Orthodox continuity as under the rule of the Ottoman state.

Pays off: "Orthodox clergy rejected papal union despite Ottoman invasion threat."

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.

DEFINE: The millet system is defined as a contractual arrangement granting each religious community its own courts, hierarchy, and education under the Sultan's personal protection in exchange for tax. Builds on: "Ottoman rule preserved Orthodox Christian autonomy after Constantinople's fall."

Having seen the dissenting attitudes present during the fall of Constantinople, we can see the theological divisions within Christianity were so great, not even the threat of a Muslim invasion would convince them to accept theological compromise. With this information, I will now show how it bears significance on the discussion found in modern scholarship on Islamophobia, which, when describing the history of Islamophobia, often and frequently ignore such tensions. These authors end up reading Christianity as being more unified than it is. By examining these historical portrayals of Islamophobia, I hope to argue that while Islam has been viewed as an enemy by Christendom, the theological dissension within Christianity sometimes caused Christian churches to view each other as worse than a foreign enemy. Relative to the threat of a Muslim invasion, the thought of accepting another's creed could be seen as more disruptive.

XREF: Relates to scholarship on Islamophobia often portraying medieval Christianity as unified against a single Muslim enemy.

A question may arise as to whether the Orthodox clergy were referring to Muslims or Turks in their discourse. In the former reading, they would see the invading Ottomans as a manifestation of Islam and in its essence a Muslim enterprise. On the latter reading, they would view the Ottomans as any other racial group like how they saw the Mongols.

QUESTION: Which reading was historically dominant among the clergy? The distinction between interpreting the Ottomans religiously vs. racially would require deeper source analysis.

However, he does not qualify this quote by mentioning the tensions between Orthodox and Latin clergy. During the fall of Constantinople such divisions were lucidly apparent and remained till the very end an obstacle between the full aid and empathy of the Latin West.

QUESTION: What specific tensions divided Orthodox and Latin clergy during the fall? This could be worth investigating further. Pays off: "Theological conviction outweighed military survival for Orthodox clergy."

While the Orthodox did see the Muslims as a threat, the danger posed by them could never be enough to require a compromise in doctrine. The Orthodox held so firmly on to their sense and definition of Christianity, despite the presence of a "common enemy," the Orthodox refused to yield to the conditions of the Latin West for military aid. While some Orthodox clergy did make way for union with the Latin church at the Council of Florence, when they arrived back to Constantinople, most reneged their signatures.

Historically, Christians sometimes lived under Muslim domains and protection. For example, after the conquest of Constantinople, since the Orthodox no longer had access to the instruments of running a state, they had to accept the autonomy under the millet system of the Ottomans. The dynamics of this relationship were defined by a tax paid by the Orthodox and in return they had protection and freedom to practice their religion. Later Christian authorities would sometimes even praise this system. In the eighteenth century, the patriarch of Jerusalem believed the hosting by the Ottomans was a special grace from God, for the Orthodox were protected from the heresies and political meddling of the Latin west.

XREF: Connects to discussions of religious minority governance and the relationship between taxation and religious tolerance in pre-modern empires. Builds on: "Ottoman millet system shielded Orthodox clergy from Latin interference."

The account only falls apart when judgment is applied as to which enemy is worse, the foreign one or the one sharing your religion.

QUESTION: What historical cases illustrate this comparative judgment, and why does closer alignment intensify the conflict?

In the course of the discussion, we described how careful one should be when describing the dynamics of Christianity. As seen during the fall of Constantinople, despite a “common enemy” being on the verge of conquering a major Christian city, the Orthodox and Latins refused to compromise on their doctrines or send aid. The tension was so severe many Orthodox clergy even preferred a takeover by the Ottomans to that of the Latins for at least theological autonomy would be guaranteed by the former.

XREF: Connects to broader Christian schism history and Ottoman millet system that granted religious autonomy to subject communities. Pays off: "Orthodox Byzantines preferred Ottoman rule over papal supremacy"

By studying the theological dynamics of Christianity at the time of the fall of Constantinople, we see that the schism within the religion was perceived as a greater threat than that of a foreign invasion. As long as the Muslim foreign invader would grant them protection to practice their religion, as seen under the millet system, the Orthodox were relatively receptive towards having the Ottomans as material rulers in contrast to the Latins.

XREF: Connects to broader themes of religious identity trumping political/national allegiance — echoes the idea that theological divisions can outweigh even existential military threats, similar to Reformation-era dynamics. Pays off: "Orthodox Christians feared Latin conquest more than Ottoman rule."

This tension has relevance to modern scholarship on the history of Christian Islamophobia. Often authors paint Christians and Christendom as a single united entity, however, such generalizations ignore the prominence of theological tension within, even during times when one would most expect all of Christianity to be united against an adversary. I hope to have shown how such authors take Christianity as more unified than it was; only by acknowledging and moving beyond this generalization of Christian unity can we have a more nuanced discourse. History instead shows that perhaps a foreign religious enemy is better than a co-religious enemy.

XREF: Parallels broader historiographical critiques of treating any religious tradition or civilization as monolithic — applies to scholarship on Islam, the West, etc.