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."

Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, loc. 42