Hubbry Logo
Millet (Ottoman Empire)Millet (Ottoman Empire)Main
Open search
Millet (Ottoman Empire)
Community hub
Millet (Ottoman Empire)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Millet (Ottoman Empire)
Millet (Ottoman Empire)
Millet (Ottoman Empire)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

History of the Ottoman Empire
Social structure
Court and aristocracy
Ethnoreligious communities
Rise of nationalism
Classes

In the Ottoman Empire, a millet (Turkish: [millet]; Ottoman Turkish: ملت, Arabic: مِلَّة) was an independent court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community (a group abiding by the laws of Muslim sharia, Christian canon law, or Jewish halakha) was allowed to rule itself under its own laws.

Despite frequently being referred to as a "system", before the nineteenth century the organization of what are now retrospectively called millets in the Ottoman Empire was not at all systematic. Rather, non-Muslims were simply given a significant degree of autonomy within their own community, without an overarching structure for the millet as a whole. The notion of distinct millets corresponding to different religious communities within the empire would not emerge until the eighteenth century.[1] Subsequently, the millet system was justified through numerous foundation myths linking it back to the time of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror (r. 1451–81),[2] although it is now understood that no such system existed in the fifteenth century.[3] Heads of millets, or milletbaşı (Ethnarch), usually had absolute secular and ecclesiastical power over their communities, being answerable only to the Sultan.

During the 19th century rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire, as a result of the Tanzimat reforms (1839–76), the term was used for legally protected ethno-linguistic minority groups, similar to the way other countries use the word nation. During this era, the status of these groups, their relation to the central government, and their self-governance, were codified into constitutions, elevating the power of the laity at the expense of clergy. The word millet comes from the Arabic word millah (ملة) and literally means "nation".[3] Abdulaziz Sachedina regards the millet system as an example of pre-modern religious pluralism, as the state recognized multiple different religious groups in exchange for some control over religious identification and the enforcement of orthodoxy.[4] Notably, Ethnarchs principally conversed with the Foreign Ministry, as if they represented foreign nations, but after 1878 it was through the Justice Ministry.[5]

Historian Johann Strauss wrote that the term "seems to be so essential for the understanding of the Ottoman system and especially the status of non-Muslims".[6] Other authors interpret the millet system as one form of non-territorial autonomy and consider it as such a potentially universal solution to the modern issues of ethnic and religious diversity.[7] According to Taner Akçam, the Ottoman state was "... based on the principle of heterogeneity and difference rather than homogeneity and sameness, [which] functioned in an opposite way to modern nation-states."[8]

Term

[edit]

The term millet, which originates from the Arabic milla, had three basic meanings in Ottoman Turkish: religion, religious community and nation.[9] The first sense derives from Quranic usage and is attested in Ottoman administrative documents into the 19th century.[9] Benjamin Braude has argued that before the Tanzimat reforms, the word millet in the sense of religious community denoted the Muslim religious community or the Christians outside of the Ottoman Empire.[9] This view is supported by Donald Quataert.[10] In contrast, Michael Ursinus writes that the word was used to refer to non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire even before that time.[9] The term was used inconsistently prior to the 19th century.[9]

The systematic use of millet as designation for non-Muslim Ottoman communities dates from the reign of Sultan Mahmud II (r. 1808–1839) in the early 19th century, when official documentation came to reiterate that non-Muslim subjects were organized into three officially sanctioned millets: Greek Orthodox, Armenian, and Jewish.[11] The bureaucrats of this era asserted that the millet system was a tradition dating back to the reign of Sultan Mehmed I (r. 1413–1421).[11] Many historians have accepted this claim and assumed that a millet system of this form existed since early Ottoman times.[11] Recent scholarship has cast doubt on this idea, showing that it was rather a later political innovation, which was introduced in the rhetorical garb of an ancient tradition.[11] The Ottoman state used religion rather than ethnicity to define each millet, and people who study the Ottoman Empire do not define the Muslims as being in a millet.[12]

The Ottoman Turkish version of the Ottoman Constitution of 1876 uses the word "millet", as do the Arabic and Persian versions; despite this, at the time the usage of the Arabic word "milla" was declining in favour of the word "ummah".[6]

The Armenian, Greek, and Jewish residents did not use the word "millet" and instead described themselves as "nations" (French: nation, Armenian: ազգ (azg), Greek: Έθνος (ethnos), and Ladino: nasyon).[13] The lack of use of the word "millet" among the Christian and Jewish minorities reflected in versions of the Ottoman Constitution in their respective languages: The French version of the Ottoman Constitution used the word "communauté" in the place of "millet", and so the others used words modeled after or based on the French: հասարակութիւն (hasarakut'iwn) in Armenian, общност/община (obstina) in Bulgarian, κοινότης (koinotēs) in Greek, and komunita in Judaeo-Spanish.[6]

Concept

[edit]
Taxation in the Ottoman Empire
Taxes
Implementation

The millet system is closely linked to Islamic rules on the treatment of non−Muslim minorities living under Islamic dominion (dhimmi). The Ottoman term specifically refers to the separate legal courts pertaining to personal law under which minorities were allowed to rule themselves (in cases not involving any Muslim) with fairly little interference from the Ottoman government.[14][15]

People were bound to their millets by their religious affiliations (or their confessional communities), rather than their ethnic origins, according to the millet concept (excepting the Armenian case, until the modern era).[16] The millets had a great deal of power – they set their own laws and collected and distributed their own taxes. All that was required was loyalty to the Empire. When a member of one millet committed a crime against a member of another, the law of the injured party applied, but the ruling Islamic majority being paramount, any dispute involving a Muslim fell under their sharia-based law.

Later, the perception of the millet concept was altered in the 19th century by the rise of nationalism within the Ottoman Empire.

Millets

[edit]

Although the Ottoman administration of non-Muslim subjects was not uniform until the 19th century and varied according to region and group, it is possible to identify some common patterns for earlier epochs.[citation needed] Christian and Jewish communities were granted a large degree of autonomy. Tax collection, education, legal and religious affairs of these communities were administered by their own leaders. This enabled the Ottomans to rule over diverse peoples with "a minimum of resistance". The Jewish community, in particular, prospered under Ottoman rule, and its ranks were swelled with the arrival of Jews who were expelled from Spain. At the same time, non-Muslims were subject to several forms of discrimination and excluded from the Ottoman ruling elite.[17] Armenians formed three millets under the Ottoman rule.[18][verification needed] A wide array of other groups such as Catholics, Karaites, and Samaritans was also represented.

Muslims

[edit]
Main article: Islam in the Ottoman Empire

The large number of Circassians in the Ottoman Empire was mainly due to the Crimean War. During the war and following years, many Circassians fled the conquest of their homeland by Russia.[19] Circassians in the Ottoman Empire, despite being Muslim, mainly kept to themselves and maintained their separate identity, even having their own courts, in which they would tolerate no outside influence.[20]

Orthodox Christians

[edit]
See also: Rum Millet, Phanariots, Bulgarian Millet, and Ullah millet

The Orthodox Christians were included in the Rum Millet (millet-i Rûm) or the "Roman nation", and enjoyed a certain autonomy.[21] It was named after Roman ("Byzantine") subjects of the Ottoman Empire, but Orthodox Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Georgians, Antiochians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, Romanians, and Serbs were all considered part of the same millet despite their differences in ethnicity and language and despite the fact that the religious hierarchy was dominated by the Greeks.[21] Nevertheless, ethnonyms never disappeared and some form of ethnic identity was preserved as evident from a Sultan's Firman from 1680, that lists the ethnic groups in the Balkans as follows: Greeks (Rum), Albanians (Arnaut), Serbs (Sirf), "Vlachs" (Eflak, referring to the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians), and Bulgarians (Bulgar).[22]

The Ecumenical Patriarch was recognized as the highest religious and political leader (millet-bashi, or ethnarch) of all Eastern Orthodox subjects of the Sultan, though in certain periods some major powers, such as Russia (under the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca), or Britain claimed the rights of protection over the Ottoman Empire's Orthodox subjects. The Serbian Patriarchate of Peć and the Archbishopric of Ohrid, autonomous Orthodox Churches under the tutelage of the Ecumenical Patriarch, were taken over by the Greek Phanariots during the 18th century, in 1766 and 1767 respectively.

By the 19th century the Orthodox Christian millet was dominated by Greeks, which were worried of Bulgarian and Romanian autocephalism. Over the course of 1860–1862, a series of laws were produced by a constitutional committee which, taken together, make up the Basic Laws of the Greek Orthodox Millet.[23]

Armenians

[edit]
Main articles: Armenian millet and Armenians in the Ottoman Empire

Until the 19th century, there was a single Armenian millet (millet-i Ermeniyân) which served all ethnic Armenians irrespective of whether they belonged to the Armenian Apostolic Church,[24] the Armenian Catholic Church,[25] or the Armenian Protestant Church (which was formed in the 19th century).[26] Besides a religious role, this millet also played a political and cultural role. Namely, it bundled together all Armenian and some other groups, showcasing a shift from religious identity towards national identity.[25] As a result of this, a type of hegemony emerged in which all groups that were under this millet had to conform to the norms imposed by the leader of the millet, who was appointed by the Sultan.[25] This had a cultural, political, linguistic, and religious effect on all of these groups. Only later did separate Catholic millets emerge. Non-Armenians from churches which were theologically linked to the Armenian Church (by virtue of being non-Chalcedonians) were under the authority of the Armenian Patriarchate, although they maintained a separate hierarchy with their own Patriarchs; these groups included the Syriac Orthodox and the Copts.[27][24]

Armenian Catholics and Armenian Protestants in 1850 (with British backing) separated from the Armenian Gregorian Millet to become their own millets. After the 1856 Imperial Reform edict, the Armenian Protestant Millet was the first millet to have a constitution sanctioned by the government, which was based on the principle of representative and lay control. Debate for a constitution among the Gregorian Armenians would be influenced by the Protestant Armenians'.[28] The Armenian Gregorian Millet received a constitution on March 29, 1863, after several years of tensions within the Armenian community between Loussavorial and Khavarials and with the Porte.[29]

Assyrians

[edit]

Assyrians are referred to as 'Asuri' in the Turkish vernacular. Assyrians split by Christian sect were thus treated as separate ethnic groups for the Ottoman government. The Church of the East largely identifies as Assyrian, but the liturgical language is called Syriac, hence multiple 'millets' for Syriac speaking Assyrians arose as a consequence of the separation by Church affiliation, as was required by 19th century Ottoman law.[30]

The Syriac Catholic community was recognized as its own millet in 1829.[30]n and the Chaldean Catholic community was recognized as its own millet in 1844.[31] The Syriac Orthodox community in the Ottoman Empire was for long not recognized as its own millet, but part of the Armenian millet under the Armenian Patriarch. This meant that the Syriac Orthodox were subject to the hegemony of the Armenians linguistically, culturally, politically, and religiously.[25] During the Tanzimat reforms (1839–78), the Syriac Orthodox were granted independent status with the recognition of their own millet in 1873.[30]

Jews

[edit]
Main article: History of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire
See also: § Modern use

Under the millet system the Jews were organized as a community on the basis of religion, alongside the other millets (e.g. Eastern Orthodox millet, Armenian millet, etc.). They were the most geographically spread group within the empire.[32] Ottoman Jews enjoyed privileges similar to Christians in the Ottoman Empire.[33] In the framework of the millet they had a considerable amount of administrative autonomy and were represented by the Hakham Bashi (Turkish: Hahambaşı حاخامباشی), who held broad powers to enact, judge, and enforce the laws among the Jews in the Ottoman Empire and often sat on the Sultan's divan.[34] The Jewish millet received a constitution in 1865.[35]

The Jews, like the other millet communities of the Ottoman Empire, were still considered "People of the book" and protected by the Sharia Law of Islam.[36] However, while the Jews were not viewed in the eyes of the law as equals of Muslims, they were still treated relatively well at points during the Ottoman Empire. Norman Stillman explains that the prosperity of medieval Jews was closely tied to that of their Muslim governors. Stillman notes that during the time between the 9th and 13th centuries when Jewish culture blossomed, "medieval Islamic civilization was at its apogee".[37] Given their rampant persecution in medieval Europe, many Jews looked favorably upon millet. In the late 19th century such groups as the Bilu, a group of young Russian Jews who were pioneers in the Zionist movement, proposed negotiating with the Sultan to allow a millet like settlement which would allow them greater independence in Palestine.[38]

Roman Catholics

[edit]

After the Fall of Constantinople, the only Latin Catholic group in the Sultan's domain were the Genoese who lived in the Byzantine capital.[39] Over the next decades, Turkish armies pushed into the Balkans, overrunning the Catholic populations of both Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary and Montenegro.

The Melkite Catholics gained their autonomy as a religious community in 1848 by Sultan Abdulmecid.[40] Bruce Masters claims that Melkite Catholics insisted that they had a millet of their own, that would grant them "sense of distinctiveness".[41]

In the Orient, the 16th century saw the Maronites of Lebanon, the Latins of Palestine, and most of the Greek islands, which once held Latin Catholic communities, come under Turkish rule.[citation needed] Papal response to the loss of these communities was initially a call to the crusade, but the response from the European Catholic monarchs was weak: French interest, moreover, lay in an alliance with the Turks against the Habsburgs[citation needed]. Furthermore, the Catholics of the Ottoman world received a protector at the Porte in the person of the French ambassador. In this way the Roman Catholic millet was established at the start of the Tanzimat reforms.[42]

Maronites

[edit]

The Maronite Patriarch historically avoided the firman and millet system until patriarch Elias Peter Hoayek was forced to accept the firman in 1916, when Mount Lebanon fell under direct Ottoman authority, as protection from local leaders.[43]

Protestants

[edit]

History

[edit]

Use for Sassanid Empire

[edit]

In a 1910 book William Ainger Wigram used the term melet in application to the Persian Sasanian Empire, arguing that the situation there was similar to the Ottoman millet system and no other term was readily available to describe it.[44] Some other authors have also adopted this usage.[45] The early Christians there formed the Church of the East (later known as the Nestorian Church after the Nestorian schism). The Church of the East's leader, the Catholicos or Patriarch of the East, was responsible to the Persian king for the Christians within the Empire. This system of maintaining the Christians as a protected religious community continued after the Islamic conquest of the Sassanids, and the community of Nestorian Christians flourished and was able to send missionaries far past the Empire's borders, reaching as far as China and India.

19th century (Reformation Era)

[edit]

In 1839 and 1856, reforms were attempted with the goal of creating equality between the religious communities of the Ottoman Empire. In the course of these reforms, new millets emerged, notably for Eastern Catholic and Protestant Christian communities. The heads of each millet and clerics in them were also to have their internal rule reviewed by the central government and to keep their power in check.[46] Many clerics in the millet system pushed back against these reforms as they believed it was meant to weaken the millets and the power these clerics had built for themselves. These millets, refusing to give up any autonomy, slowed down the attempted reforms and their impact on the equality of religious communities.[47]

Reformulation into Ottomanism

[edit]
Further information: Tanzimat, Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856, and Ottomanism

Before the turn of the 19th century, the millets had a great deal of power – they set their own laws and collected and distributed their own taxes. The Tanzimat reforms aimed to encourage Ottomanism among the subject nations and stop the rise of secessionist nationalist movements. within the Ottoman Empire. The reforms tried to integrate non-Muslims and non-Turks more thoroughly into the Ottoman society with new laws and regulations, but failed.

In 1856, during the Tanzimat era, Sultan Abdulmejid I enacted the Hatt-ı Hümayun (modern Turkish Islahat Fermânı; "Firman of the Reforms"), which proclaimed freedom of religion and civil equality of all religious communities. It further granted the authorities in each millet greater privileges and self-governing powers, but also required oaths of allegiance to the Sultan.

In March 1863, the Sultan enacted the "Regulation of the Armenian Nation" (Turkish: Nizâmnâme−i Millet−i Ermeniyân): a constitution for the Armenian Orthodox Gregorian nation (millet) of that time. This document was drawn up by Armenian intelligentsia, which sought to curb the powers of the Armenian Patriarch and nobility. It created an Armenian National Assembly.[48]

These two reforms, which were theoretically perfect examples of social change by law, caused serious stress on the Ottoman political and administrative structure.

Effect of Protectorate of missions

[edit]
See also: Protectorate of missions and Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman System lost important domestic powers under the Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire. Many foreigners resident in the Empire were not subject to its laws, but rather those of their homelands. In addition, European powers became formal Protectors of certain groups in the empire: Russia of Eastern Orthodox groups, France of Roman Catholics, and Great Britain of Jews and other groups.

Russia and Britain competed for the Armenians; the Eastern Orthodox perceived American Protestants, who had over 100 missionaries established in Anatolia by World War I, as weakening their own teaching.

These religious activities, subsidized by the governments of western nations, were not devoid of political goals, such in the case of candlestick wars of 1847, which eventually led in 1854[49] to the Crimean War.[50] Tension began among the Catholic and Orthodox monks in Palestine with France channeling resources to increase its influence in the region from 1840. Repairs to shrines were important for the sects as they were linked to the possession of keys to the shrines. Notes were given by the protectorates, including the French, to the Ottoman capital about the governor; he was condemned as he had to defend the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by placing soldiers inside the temple because of the "candlestick wars", eliminating the change of keys.[50] Successive Ottoman governments had issued edicts granting primacy of access to different Christian groups which vied for control of Jerusalem's holy sites.[51]

Effect of nationalism

[edit]
See also: French Revolution and Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire

Under the original design, the multi-faced structure of the millet system was unified under the House of Osman. The rise of nationalism in Europe under the influence of the French Revolution had extended to the Ottoman Empire during the 19th century. Each millet became increasingly independent with the establishment of its own schools, churches, hospitals and other facilities. These activities effectively moved the Christian population outside the framework of the Ottoman political system.

The Ottoman millet system (citizenship) began to degrade with increasing identification of religious creed with ethnic nationality. The interaction of ideas of French revolution with the millet system created a strain of thought (a new form of personal identification) which made nationality synonymous with religion under the Ottoman flag. It was impossible to hold the system or prevent Clash of Civilizations when the Armenian national liberation movement expressed itself within the Armenian church. Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan expressed his position on Ottoman Armenians to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Salisbury on 13 April 1878.[52]

It is no longer possible for the Armenians and the Turks to live together. Only a Christian administration can provide the equality, justice and the freedom of conscience. A Christian administration should replace the Muslim administration. Armenia (Eastern Anatolia) and Kilikya, are the regions where the Christian administration should be founded... The Turkish Armenians want this... That is, a Christian administration is demanded in Turkish Armenia, as in Lebanon.[52]

Post-Ottoman use

[edit]

Today a version of religion-based legal pluralism resembling the millet system still persists in varying forms in some post-Ottoman countries like Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Greece (for religious minorities), which observe the principle of separate personal courts and/or laws for every recognized religious community and reserved seats in the parliament. Some legal systems which developed outside the Ottoman Empire, such as those in India, Iran, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, display similar characteristics.

In Egypt for instance, the application of family law – including marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, inheritance, and burial – is based on an individual's religious beliefs. In the practice of family law, the State recognizes only the three "heavenly religions": Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Muslim families are subject to the Personal Status Law, which draws on Sharia. Christian families are subject to canon law, and Jewish families are subject to Jewish law. In cases of family law disputes involving a marriage between a Christian woman and a Muslim man, the courts apply the Personal Status Law.[53]

Israel, too, keeps a system based on the Ottoman millet, in which personal status is based on a person's belonging to a religious community. The state of Israel – on the basis of laws inherited from Ottoman times and retained both under British rule and by independent Israel – reserves the right to recognise some communities but not others. Thus, Orthodox Judaism is officially recognised in Israel, while Reform Rabbis and Conservative Rabbis are not recognised and cannot perform marriages. Israel recognised the Druze and Baháʼí as separate communities, which the Ottomans and British had not – due mainly to political considerations. Also, the state of Israel reserves the right to determine to which community a person belongs, and officially register him or her accordingly – even when the person concerned objects to being part of a religious community (e.g., staunch atheists of Jewish origin are registered as members of the Jewish religious community, a practice derived ultimately from the fact that the millet ultimately designated a person's ethnicity more than a person's beliefs).

Israeli secularists such as Shulamit Aloni and Uri Avnery often protested and called for abolition of this Ottoman remnant, and its replacement by a system modeled on that of the United States where religious affiliation is considered a person's private business in which the state should not interfere. However, all such proposals have been defeated.

Greece recognizes only a Muslim minority, and no ethnic or national minorities, such as Turks, Pomaks, or Bulgarians. This is the result of several international treaties as the Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations of 1923 and of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1924, when the old millet categories were used for the exchange between Greece and Turkey of the Greek Orthodox population in Turkey and Moslems in Greece. The categories were also used to establish the protection of the two remaining recognized minorities, the "Muslims of Western Thrace" (Turks, Pomaks, and Roms) and the "Greek Orthodox of Istanbul". In 1924, upon the League of Nations' demand, a bilateral Bulgarian-Greek agreement was signed, known as the Politis–Kalfov Protocol, recognizing the "Greek Slavophones" as Bulgarians and guaranteeing their protection.[54] On 2 February 1925, the Greek parliament, claiming pressure from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which threatened to renounce the Greek–Serbian Alliance of 1913, refused to ratify the agreement; the refusal lasted until 10 June 1925. Under the 1927 Mollov-Kafantaris Agreement, the bulk of the Slavic-speaking population in Greece left for Bulgaria.

Current meaning of the word

[edit]

Today, the word "millet" means "nation" or "people" in Turkish, e.g. Türk milleti ("Turkish nation"), İngiliz milleti ("English nation"), etc. It also retains its use as a religious and ethnic classification; it can also be used as a slang to classify people belonging to a particular group (not necessarily religious or ethnic), such as dolmuşçu milleti ("taxibus drivers") or kadın milleti ("women folk").

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Millet (Ottoman Empire)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In the , a millet denoted a recognized religious community of non-Muslims—primarily Orthodox Christians (Rum millet), , , and later others such as Catholics and Protestants—granted limited to manage internal affairs like , , , and religious observance under their own clerical leaders, while remaining subject to the sultan's overarching authority, Islamic supremacy, and fiscal obligations including the poll tax levied on able-bodied adult males as a mark of protected but subordinate status. This arrangement, with roots in the classical Islamic dhimma pact that exchanged communal security and tolerance of worship for non-interference in Muslim dominance and submission to state power, enabled the empire to administer its vast, multi-confessional territories through decentralized, non-territorial governance rather than uniform assimilation. The system's origins trace to the Ottoman adoption and adaptation of pre-existing Islamic practices for handling conquered peoples, crystallizing after II's 1453 conquest of , when he reappointed the Orthodox as millet bașı (head of the community) to oversee the Rum millet, encompassing Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, and other Eastern Christians, thereby co-opting existing ecclesiastical hierarchies for imperial control and tax collection. Armenian and Jewish millets followed suit, with leaders accountable directly to the , fostering a pragmatic stability that sustained diverse populations across , the , and the for centuries by balancing central oversight—enforced through periodic interventions, confiscations of church property, or replacement of leaders—with communal self-regulation that minimized direct administrative burdens on the Muslim core. While enabling economic contributions from skilled non-Muslim artisans, merchants, and financiers, the framework inherently reinforced hierarchies: non-Muslims faced restrictions on public worship, testimony against Muslims in court, and (exempted via taxes), reflecting causal priorities of preserving Islamic order over egalitarian integration. Notable for its endurance amid imperial expansion, the millet structure contributed to the Ottoman longevity by diffusing ethnic tensions through confessional silos, yet it drew scrutiny in for retrospective idealization as a model of pluralism; empirical accounts reveal it as an instrumental tool of divide-and-rule, prone to corruption among millet elites and vulnerable to sultanic whims, with 19th-century reforms and the 1856 Islahat Fermanı eroding exclusive privileges by extending and to non-Muslims, accelerating nationalist fractures that fragmented millets into ethno-linguistic identities and hastened the empire's dissolution. Modern scholarship, drawing on archival records, increasingly challenges the "millet system" as a monolithic construct, viewing it instead as an evolving, practice shaped by fiscal and power dynamics rather than ideological tolerance, though its legacy persists in debates over in post-Ottoman states.

Terminology and Conceptual Framework

Etymology and Definition

The term millet derives from the milla (مِلَّة), signifying a religious or community of believers, a concept embedded in early Islamic to denote adherents of Abrahamic faiths distinct from . adapted this term from its Arabic roots, using it to classify primarily non-Muslim groups—such as Orthodox Christians, , and —as organized confessional entities within the empire's multi-ethnic framework, with the plural form milel appearing in official documents. While occasionally applied to the Muslim population in broader pre-Ottoman Islamic contexts, its Ottoman usage emphasized differentiation of dhimmi (protected non-Muslim) populations under Islamic rule, reflecting pragmatic administrative needs rather than . In Ottoman governance, a millet referred to a semi-autonomous religious community, granted over its members' personal (e.g., , , and ), religious observance, and communal taxation collection, headed by a recognized spiritual leader accountable to the . This structure, evolving from the onward—exemplified by Sultan Mehmed II's 1454 appointment of Orthodox Patriarch Gennadios II as leader of the Rum millet—allowed non- to maintain internal cohesion and customary practices while upholding imperial loyalty, military exemptions (via payments), and subordination to state courts in fiscal or criminal matters involving Muslims. Historiographical analysis indicates that the "millet system" as a codified framework is partly a , with actual practices varying ad hoc across regions and eras, often intensified in the amid reforms to counter European pressures and internal fragmentation.

Islamic Foundations and Dhimmi Integration

The concept of dhimma in Islamic jurisprudence formed the foundational legal framework for the Ottoman millet system, designating non-Muslims—primarily Jews and Christians as ahl al-kitab (People of the Book)—as protected subjects under Muslim sovereignty. This status required dhimmis to acknowledge Islamic political authority, pay the jizya poll tax as a substitute for military service and zakat, and adhere to restrictions on public religious expression, such as bans on proselytization, new places of worship, or audible calls to prayer beyond whispers. In return, they received guarantees of personal security, property rights, and communal autonomy in family and religious matters, reflecting Sharia's balance between tolerance and supremacy. Early precedents, such as Caliph ibn al-Khattab's assurance to the of in 637 CE during the Muslim , codified these terms: non-Muslims retained their churches and clergy, practiced their faith privately, but submitted to the (commander of the faithful), paid taxes humbly, and avoided actions undermining Islamic order, like building churches in Muslim quarters or displaying crosses prominently. This pact, echoed in subsequent caliphal treaties, emphasized dhimma as a contractual subordination rather than equality, with violations risking revocation of protection. Ottoman rulers adapted this model by elevating communal leaders as fiscal and judicial intermediaries, ensuring dhimmis' integration as loyal taxpayers without eroding the ummah's primacy. Qur'anic verse 9:29 underpinned the system's fiscal rationale, mandating combat against who reject until they pay jizya "with willing hand, while they are humbled," interpreted by classical jurists like as establishing perpetual minority status under protection, not conversion or expulsion. In Ottoman practice, millets operationalized this by delegating internal governance—marriage, inheritance, education—to rabbinical, patriarchal, or synodal authorities, who collected jizya and kharaj (land tax) for the state, fostering administrative efficiency across diverse populations comprising up to 40% non-Muslims by the . State oversight persisted in inter-millet disputes or crimes against Muslims via courts, where dhimmi testimony held reduced weight, reinforcing hierarchical integration.

Administrative Structure and Governance

Levels of Autonomy and State Oversight

Non-Muslim communities under the Ottoman millet framework possessed primarily in the domains of religious practice, , and personal status laws, encompassing , , , and civil disputes adjudicated by communal courts according to their own religious codes. This self-regulation extended to internal fiscal management, where community leaders apportioned and initially collected taxes before remitting a portion to the state, fostering a degree of administrative self-sufficiency that minimized direct imperial interference in daily communal life. Such arrangements, rooted in Islamic protections for "," enabled groups like the Greek Orthodox Rum millet and Jewish communities to preserve distinct social structures, with leaders such as patriarchs or hakham bashis wielding executive and judicial powers over members. State oversight, however, circumscribed this through mechanisms ensuring subordination to central , including the sultan's or appointment of millet leaders to guarantee and prevent subversive activities. Leaders bore direct responsibility for quotas, public order, and suppressing internal dissent that might escalate to imperial threats, with the state reserving jurisdiction over , inter-communal disputes, and matters impinging on or fiscal stability. Non-Muslims fulfilled exemptions via the , reinforcing the state's monopoly on defense and external policy, while periodic interventions—such as deposing patriarchs during crises—underscored the conditional nature of communal privileges. The balance tilted toward pragmatism rather than unqualified tolerance, as served imperial efficiency by delegating routine governance while upholding Islamic hierarchy; deviations, as in 19th-century centralization efforts like the 1839 edict, progressively eroded self-rule by imposing uniform civil codes and direct provincial oversight. Historiographical portrayals often emphasize this as non-territorial autonomy, yet critiques highlight its diffuse, non-formalized character, with state power ultimately paramount to avert fragmentation in a multi-ethnic domain spanning over 600 years.

Leadership Selection and Internal Jurisdiction

The leaders of Ottoman millets, known as milletbaşı or ethnarchs, were generally selected through internal communal processes involving religious hierarchies, such as synods or rabbinical councils, but their appointments required formal confirmation by the via a (imperial decree), which ensured loyalty and fiscal responsibility. This mechanism allowed the state to veto candidates deemed unreliable while leveraging community self-selection to minimize administrative burden. For instance, the Ecumenical of the Orthodox millet was elected by the but depended on Ottoman approval, a practice rooted in the 1454 appointment of Gennadios II Scholarios by shortly after the conquest of , granting him both spiritual and civil authority over the Rum community. Similar processes applied to the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, elected by clerical assemblies and confirmed by the state, and the (Haham Başı) for , chosen by rabbinical leaders with imperial endorsement. Internal jurisdiction within millets centered on personal status matters governed by each community's , including , , , and guardianship, adjudicated in or rabbinical courts under the leader's oversight. Millet heads also managed , charitable institutions, and religious observances, such as the maintenance of churches, synagogues, and schools, fostering communal cohesion without territorial basis. This autonomy extended to internal dispute resolution and welfare distribution, with leaders acting as intermediaries for tax collection—particularly the jizya remitted to the state—positioning them as both communal advocates and fiscal agents. For example, the Orthodox Patriarch held jurisdiction over an estimated 2-3 million subjects across the empire by the , enforcing in family cases while coordinating . State oversight circumscribed this jurisdiction, reserving , public order, and military obligations for and officials, with millet leaders personally liable for communal compliance and punishable—often by deposition or execution—for unrest or tax shortfalls. The system enabled periodic revocations, as seen in the frequent depositions of Ecumenical Patriarchs (over 100 between and ), reflecting the Sultan's leverage to align leadership with dynastic interests. This balance preserved integration under Islamic supremacy while delegating routine governance, though it incentivized corruption, as aspirants often paid substantial bribes for confirmation, tying leadership to financial capacity rather than pure merit.

Composition and Specific Communities

The Dominant Muslim Millet

The Muslim community served as the foundational and dominant segment of Ottoman society, embodying the empire's Islamic core and exercising overarching authority over non-Muslim millets without requiring separate communal autonomy. As the ruling majority, Muslims were integrated into the central state apparatus, subject to a unified legal framework blending for personal status, family, and religious matters with sultanic kanun for fiscal, military, and administrative issues. This direct governance contrasted sharply with the delegated jurisdictions afforded to dhimmis, reflecting the empire's prioritization of Islamic supremacy and the sultan's role as both temporal ruler and, from onward, caliph following Selim I's conquest of the and absorption of the Abbasid caliphal title. The ulema, a class of jurists and scholars trained in Hanafi —the official school of law—enforced through qadis appointed by the state, ensuring uniformity across provinces while collecting and maintaining waqfs for public welfare. At the apex of Muslim religious hierarchy stood the Sheikh ul-Islam, whose office, formalized in the and peaking in influence during the 16th, functioned as the empire's and de facto head of the Muslim clerical establishment. Appointed and dismissible by the , the Sheikh ul-Islam issued fatwas with binding interpretive force on doctrinal and legal questions, oversaw the appointment of provincial qadis and medrese professors, and legitimized key political decisions, including the enthronement or deposition of rulers via religious sanction. For example, in 1622, Sheikh ul-Islam Esad Efendi endorsed the coup against , underscoring the intertwining of religious and political power. This structure maintained doctrinal orthodoxy among the Sunni majority while accommodating Sufi orders like the Naqshbandiyya and , which influenced popular piety and occasionally state policy without challenging central authority. Demographically, Muslims formed the empire's largest group, comprising roughly 75% of the by the 1897 amid ongoing conversions, migrations, and territorial shifts that bolstered their proportion from earlier mixed Balkan-Anatolian compositions. This dominance conferred privileges such as exemption from the poll tax—paid by non-Muslims as a marker of protected status—and preferential access to military and administrative roles, though the system temporarily incorporated converted Christian youths into elite corps until its abolition in 1826. Internal fissures, including tensions with heterodox sects like Alevis who faced periodic persecution for perceived Shiite leanings, were managed through ulema oversight rather than millet-style segregation, reinforcing communal cohesion under state Islam. The Muslim framework thus underpinned the empire's stability, enabling fiscal extraction via land-based grants to sipahis and ideological unity against external threats, until 19th-century reforms eroded clerical autonomy in favor of centralized bureaucracy.

Primary Non-Muslim Millets: Orthodox and Armenians

The Rum Millet, encompassing Eastern Orthodox Christians such as , Serbs, , and other adherents of the faith, formed the largest non-Muslim community under Ottoman rule. Sultan established its leadership structure by appointing Gennadios II Scholarios as on January 6, 1454, shortly after the city's conquest. This granted the a berat (imperial diploma) conferring authority over religious, educational, and personal legal matters for Orthodox subjects empire-wide, including via ecclesiastical courts for issues like , , and . The collected the cizye from community members—estimated to cover millions by the —and remitted a portion to the state, functioning as both spiritual head and fiscal intermediary, though selections required sultanic approval and patriarchs could be deposed for disloyalty or fiscal shortfalls. This autonomy extended to maintaining schools, monasteries, and charitable institutions funded by communal endowments (waqfs), fostering internal cohesion while subordinating the millet to Ottoman sovereignty; the Patriarch's palace in the Phanar district of served as its administrative hub, with lay notables (archons) advising on secular matters. Over time, ethnic tensions arose, as Greek dominance within the millet marginalized Slavic subgroups, contributing to later schisms like the Bulgarian Exarchate's creation in 1870, but the system initially stabilized diverse Orthodox populations by centralizing authority under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Armenian Millet, centered on adherents of the Armenian Apostolic Church, received analogous recognition when Mehmed II appointed Archbishop Hovagim I of as of in 1461. This elevated the see to oversee all Ottoman Armenians, granting the civil-religious powers similar to his Orthodox counterpart, including control over courts, education via church schools, and tax collection for the cizye, with the community operating hospitals and welfare systems through self-funded waqfs. The , confirmed by imperial decree, acted as liaison to the Porte, managing disputes and petitions, though his position involved heavy costs—often tens of thousands of ducats—to secure appointment, reflecting the Ottoman practice of auctioning millet headships to ensure fiscal reliability. Concentrated in eastern and urban centers like , where formed a mercantile elite, the millet's emphasized clerical-lay councils for decision-making, preserving Armenian liturgy and script while navigating state oversight; deviations, such as Catholic Armenian missions in the , prompted sub-millets but did not erode the core Apostolic structure until 19th-century reforms. Both millets exemplified pragmatic Ottoman delegation of internal control to religious hierarchies, enabling efficient taxation and order over non-Muslims—roughly 40% of the empire's population in the —while reserving ultimate loyalty and military exemptions to the .

Jewish and Other Minor Millets

The Jewish communities of the formed a recognized millet, granting them autonomy in religious, educational, and communal matters under the framework, distinct from the larger (Eastern Orthodox) and Armenian Apostolic millets. This structure emerged following the 1453 conquest of , when Sultan appointed Moshe Capsali as the first Haham Başı () in 1454, tasking him with overseeing Jewish courts, synagogues, and tax collection on behalf of the state. The Haham Başı, based in , acted as the primary liaison to the , enforcing internal discipline and remitting the collectively from the community, while local rabbis handled day-to-day jurisdiction in provinces like Salonika, Izmir, and . Unlike the more hierarchically structured Christian millets, Jewish organization remained decentralized without a unified pyramidal authority until the 1835 reforms, relying instead on rabbinical councils and family-based leadership in key commercial centers. The Jewish millet's population surged after Sultan Bayezid II's 1492 edict welcoming Sephardic exiles from and , integrating an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 refugees who bolstered Ottoman trade networks in textiles, , and , particularly in ports like , where Jews comprised up to 50% of residents by the . Communal autonomy extended to personal status laws, including , , and observance, adjudicated in rabbinical courts whose decisions were enforceable by Ottoman officials provided they did not contravene imperial edicts. However, the millet's leaders were state appointees, subject to deposition for fiscal shortfalls or unrest, as seen in Capsali's successors facing periodic scrutiny amid economic pressures. Other minor millets encompassed smaller non-Muslim groups, often subsets of Christian denominations or emerging sects, which received formal recognition sporadically, primarily during the 19th-century era to accommodate European diplomatic pressures. These included Syrian Jacobites (recognized circa 1830), Chaldean Catholics, Melkites, and Protestants (formalized in 1856 via the Protestant Regulations), each with lay councils and clerical heads managing limited in and charity but under stricter state oversight than earlier millets. Groups like the Karaites or Yezidis operated semi-autonomously without full millet status in the classical period, relying on local pacts rather than centralized hierarchies, reflecting the system's pragmatic adaptation to demographic realities over rigid confessional categorization.

Historical Development

Pre-Ottoman Influences and Early Adaptations

The Ottoman millet system's antecedents lie primarily in the Islamic dhimmi framework, codified as early as the 7th century under the , which accorded protected status (dhimma) to Jews and —termed ""—permitting them self-governance in personal status laws, religious observance, and community affairs in exchange for the poll tax and loyalty to Muslim rulers. This precedent was operationalized by intermediary Muslim polities, notably the Seljuk (c. 1077–1308), where Turkish rulers in administered heterogeneous Christian populations via existing clerical hierarchies, collecting tribute while allowing ecclesiastical courts to handle internal disputes, thereby minimizing administrative burdens on expanding frontiers. Byzantine influences supplemented these Islamic foundations, as the empire's ecclesiastical administration vested the Orthodox patriarchate with quasi-secular powers over taxation, , and adjudication for Greek-speaking Christians, a decentralized model suited to diverse provinces that Ottoman conquerors pragmatically emulated to integrate annexed territories without wholesale disruption. In the Byzantine context, the church's role extended to fiscal agency for the state, fostering communal cohesion amid ethnic pluralism, which paralleled the emphasis on religious collectivities as units of imperial loyalty. Early Ottoman adaptations during the 14th century blended these influences amid rapid expansion in Anatolia and Thrace, where frontier emirs like Osman I (r. c. 1281–1323/4) and Orhan (r. 1323/4–1362) preserved local Christian notables and bishops as intermediaries for tax farming and order maintenance, issuing informal recognitions akin to later berats to secure allegiance from Byzantine-aligned communities. Historians such as Halil İnalcık have noted that these arrangements constituted proto-millet practices from the empire's inception, prioritizing pragmatic stability over doctrinal uniformity by leveraging pre-existing religious structures to govern non-Muslim majorities, with dhimmi obligations enforced through communal heads rather than direct central oversight. This phase culminated in transitional mechanisms, such as the devşirme recruitment from Christian villages, which indirectly reinforced millet-like segregation by channeling select youth into state service while insulating broader communities.

Establishment in the 15th Century

The conquest of Constantinople on May 29, 1453, by Sultan Mehmed II marked a pivotal shift in Ottoman governance over diverse populations, necessitating structured administration of the empire's largest non-Muslim group, the Orthodox Christians. In early 1454, Mehmed appointed Gennadios II Scholarios, a staunch anti-unionist theologian, as Ecumenical Patriarch, restoring the patriarchate's seat in the city and endowing it with extensive authority over all Eastern Orthodox subjects across Ottoman territories. This investiture granted the patriarch civil and religious jurisdiction, including the collection of taxes, adjudication of personal and family law matters, and oversight of education and communal welfare, effectively establishing the Rum millet as a semi-autonomous entity responsible for internal order while pledging loyalty and fiscal obligations to the sultan. This arrangement reflected pragmatic statecraft rather than ideological tolerance alone; Mehmed sought to repopulate the depopulated capital, stabilize revenue streams through the patriarch's role as a tax intermediary (akin to a mültezim or tax farmer), and prevent unrest by leveraging existing ecclesiastical hierarchies for control. Historians identify this as the foundational precedent for the millet framework, though the term "millet" itself emerged later and the system's full institutionalization developed over subsequent decades; earlier and practices influenced it, but Mehmed's policy formalized non-territorial autonomy tied to religious leadership under central oversight. By mid-century, the model extended to other communities: in 1461, Mehmed separated the Armenian Apostolic Church from Orthodox oversight, appointing a patriarch in Constantinople to govern Armenian Gregorians amid doctrinal disputes, thereby creating the Armenian millet with analogous privileges in internal affairs and taxation. Jewish communities, already present in Ottoman lands, received recognition through the appointment of a (hahambaşı) under Mehmed, who invited fleeing persecution and granted them communal self-regulation in civil matters, though their formal millet status solidified more prominently in the late 15th century. These steps consolidated a multi-confessional administrative template, prioritizing fiscal efficiency and imperial cohesion over uniform assimilation.

Operation During the Classical Period (16th-18th Centuries)

The millet system during the 16th to 18th centuries functioned primarily as an intermediary structure between the Ottoman central administration and non-Muslim communities, delegating routine internal management to religious leaders while subordinating these groups to Islamic public law and state fiscal demands. Leaders of recognized millets—such as the Ecumenical Patriarch for the Orthodox Rum community, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople (established in 1461), and the Hahambaşı for Jews—exercised authority over religious observance, family law, inheritance, and basic welfare provisions, but their decisions required alignment with broader imperial kanun (secular regulations) and sharia principles. These figures served as ethno-religious intermediaries, appointed or deposed by sultanal decree to ensure compliance, with the state retaining ultimate sovereignty over public order, inter-millet disputes, and military obligations. Fiscal operations underscored the system's hierarchical integration, as millet heads collectively assessed and gathered the jizya (head tax) from adult male non-Muslims, remitting fixed quotas to the treasury after deducting administrative costs, a practice that streamlined revenue extraction across vast territories without necessitating direct provincial oversight. For instance, the Rum Patriarchate managed tax liabilities for Orthodox populations spanning the Balkans to Anatolia, coordinating with local bishops and lay notables to enforce payments amid periodic imperial audits. Legal adjudication reflected pragmatic pluralism: internal tribunals applied confessional norms to personal matters like marriage and divorce, but appeals or violations involving Muslims or state interests escalated to kadı courts, preventing fragmentation while reinforcing dhimmi subordination. This arrangement, rooted in pre-Ottoman precedents but stabilized under 16th-century kanunnames, minimized administrative burdens on the center during expansionist phases. By the 18th century, operational strains emerged from uneven enforcement and elite capture, such as the Phanariote families' dominance in Orthodox leadership, which intertwined millet affairs with court politics and occasionally prompted sultanal interventions to curb corruption or unrest. Yet the framework persisted, enabling the empire to govern an estimated 20-30% non-Muslim populace (varying by region) through co-opted communal structures rather than uniform assimilation. Empirical records from tax registers (tahrir defterleri) indicate consistent revenue flows from millets, underscoring causal efficacy in sustaining cohesion amid diversity, though systemic inequalities—non-Muslims barred from high military or judicial posts—preserved Muslim primacy without eroding functional delegation.

Reforms and Disruptions in the 19th Century

The Tanzimat reforms, initiated by the Ottoman Gülhane Hatt-ı Şerif on November 3, 1839, under Sultan Abdülmecid I, proclaimed equality of all subjects before the law, including protections for life, honor, and property, while aiming to centralize administration and curb the fiscal and judicial autonomies long held by millet leaders. These measures challenged the traditional millet structure by introducing secular bureaucratic oversight, mixed commercial courts in 1840, and a push toward uniform taxation, which diminished the religious communities' exclusive control over internal affairs and taxation collection. The subsequent Islahat Fermanı (Reform Edict) of February 18, 1856, explicitly extended civic equality to non-Muslims, granting them access to public office and military service exemptions replaced by cash payments, further eroding millet-based hierarchies by redefining subjects as Ottoman citizens rather than segregated confessional groups. In response to these centralizing pressures, the Ottoman government permitted the reorganization of major non-Muslim millets through adopted regulations (nizamnames) that incorporated lay assemblies alongside clerical authority, blending traditional autonomy with modern representative elements. The Greek Orthodox millet established a mixed national in 1861, comprising clergy and elected lay delegates to handle communal education, courts, and finances under Porte supervision. Similarly, the Armenian Apostolic millet ratified its constitution on March 29, 1863, creating a national assembly with proportional representation from dioceses to manage internal governance, though subject to imperial approval. The Jewish millet followed with its own statute in 1865, establishing a council for civil matters, reflecting a pattern where these reforms preserved millet identities while subordinating them to state oversight, ostensibly to foster loyalty amid European scrutiny post-Crimean War. These adaptations, however, coincided with rising ethnic nationalisms that fragmented millet cohesion, particularly within the Orthodox community. Bulgarian demands for ecclesiastical independence, fueled by linguistic and cultural divergences from Greek dominance in the Rum millet, culminated in the Ottoman firman establishing the on February 27, 1870, which separated Bulgarian dioceses from the Ecumenical Patriarchate's authority. The Patriarchate condemned this as schismatic in 1872, excommunicating the exarchate's supporters, yet the Porte upheld the split to counter Greek influence and appease Slavic unrest, effectively dismantling the unified Rum millet into competing national entities. Such disruptions, exacerbated by external powers like Russia promoting pan-Slavism, undermined the millet system's stabilizing role, as confessional loyalties yielded to proto-nationalist aspirations that prioritized ethnic separation over imperial integration. By the 1870s, these tensions contributed to provincial autonomy grants, like Mount Lebanon's in 1861, signaling the millets' erosion as viable instruments of diverse governance.

Decline and Abolition Amid Nationalism

The rise of ethnic nationalism in the 19th century undermined the millet system's foundation of religious communal autonomy, as groups within millets increasingly prioritized national identities over confessional ones, leading to fragmentation and secessionist movements. The Greek War of Independence (1821–1830) exemplified this shift, with Orthodox Christians in the Peloponnese rejecting millet subordination to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in favor of sovereign statehood, resulting in the establishment of an independent Greece by 1830 and a weakened Rum Millet that lost significant territorial influence. Similarly, Serbs secured de facto autonomy through the First (1804–1813) and Second (1815–1817) Serbian Uprisings, formalized in the 1830 Constantinople Treaty, which granted them self-governance and further eroded the system's cohesion by demonstrating that armed resistance could yield national concessions beyond millet privileges. These Balkan nationalisms, fueled by Enlightenment ideas, Philhellenism, and Russian pan-Slavic support, exposed the millets' vulnerability to external interference and internal dissent, as subgroups like Bulgarians sought separation from the dominant Orthodox hierarchy, culminating in the 1870 Bulgarian Exarchate's recognition as a distinct millet but accelerating demands for full independence achieved in 1878 via the Treaty of Berlin. Tanzimat reforms (1839–1876) accelerated the decline by centralizing authority and promoting individual citizenship over communal rights, directly challenging millet jurisdictions in taxation, education, and personal law. The 1839 Gülhane Edict promised legal equality for all subjects regardless of religion, theoretically diminishing the millets' monopoly on non-Muslim governance, while the 1856 Reform Edict extended civil rights, military exemptions were curtailed, and state oversight increased in millet affairs, fostering resentment among conservatives who viewed it as undermining Islamic supremacy and among nationalists who saw it as insufficient for ethnic self-determination. These measures, intended to modernize the empire and counter European criticisms of "capitulatory" inequalities, instead provoked backlash: Muslim elites resisted equalization, and Christian communities exploited new rights for national mobilization, as seen in the 1860s Lebanese civil strife and 1875–1876 Bosnian-Herzegovinian uprising, where millet structures failed to contain inter-communal violence amid rising ethnic consciousness. The reforms' emphasis on Ottomanism—a supra-national identity—proved illusory, as evidenced by the 1876 constitution's suspension amid Russo-Turkish War losses, highlighting how centralization clashed with the millets' decentralized ethos without resolving underlying nationalist fissures. In the empire's final decades, intensified Turkish nationalism under the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) after the 1908 Young Turk Revolution further dismantled millet remnants through Turkification policies, suppressing non-Turkish languages and institutions in education and administration to forge a unitary state amid territorial losses. Balkan Wars (1912–1913) expelled millions of Muslims and obliterated millet frameworks in lost provinces, while World War I-era pressures, including Armenian relocations (1915–1917) amid Russian advances and perceived disloyalty, shattered the Armenian Millet's viability. The system's formal abolition occurred with the Republic of Turkey's founding: the 1 November 1922 abolition of the Sultanate ended theocratic underpinnings, and Article 69 of the 1924 Constitution enshrined equality before the law, explicitly voiding group privileges claimed by religious or class entities, thus replacing millet-based pluralism with secular citizenship in the surviving Anatolian core. This transition reflected causal realities of imperial contraction—military defeats and economic stagnation amplified nationalist centrifugal forces—rendering the millet obsolete as a governance model ill-suited to modern state-building.

Achievements in Governance and Stability

Pragmatic Control Over Diversity

The Ottoman millet system exerted pragmatic control over the empire's diverse religious and ethnic populations by delegating authority to community leaders, who functioned as extensions of central power while handling internal affairs. Religious heads, such as the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch or the Armenian Catholicos, were appointed or confirmed by the Sultan and bore responsibility for enforcing communal laws on marriage, inheritance, and education, thereby preserving cultural practices that might otherwise provoke resistance to imperial rule. This division of labor reduced the administrative burden on the state, allowing it to focus on military and fiscal priorities amid a population where non-Muslims constituted significant majorities in provinces like the Balkans. Fiscal control was centralized through the millets' role in tax collection: leaders gathered the jizya poll tax and other levies from community members—often as a lump sum remitted to the treasury—ensuring steady revenue without direct state intervention in diverse localities. In return, communities received dhimmi protections, including exemption from military service (except via selective systems like devshirme) and guarantees against forced conversion, which aligned local loyalty with imperial stability. The Sultan's authority to depose uncooperative leaders, as occurred with several Orthodox patriarchs in the 16th century for fiscal shortfalls or suspected disloyalty, underscored the system's hierarchical pragmatism: autonomy was conditional on subservience to the sovereign. This framework promoted long-term cohesion by leveraging existing social structures for governance, averting the chaos of uniform imposition on heterogeneous groups spanning Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and others. Empirical outcomes included relative inter-communal peace during the classical period (16th-18th centuries), with the empire sustaining control over territories conquered after 1453, where legal pluralism under Islamic supremacy prevented widespread revolts until external nationalist influences emerged. By prioritizing functional integration over ideological uniformity, the millets enabled the Ottoman state to extract resources and manpower efficiently, adapting to demographic realities rather than attempting costly homogenization.

Contributions to Long-Term Imperial Cohesion

The millet system enhanced Ottoman imperial cohesion by devolving authority over personal law, education, and communal welfare to recognized religious leaders, who in turn pledged allegiance to the and enforced obligations such as collection and internal security. This non-territorial , rooted in Islamic dhimmi protections but adapted pragmatically for governance, minimized direct central intervention in the daily lives of non-Muslim subjects—estimated at over half the empire's population in the 16th century—while binding communities through their hierarchies' dependence on sultanic appointment and protection. By segmenting society along confessional lines rather than ethnic or territorial ones, the system discouraged broad inter-communal alliances that could challenge imperial authority, fostering a layered where local elites mediated between subjects and the state. A pivotal example occurred following the 1453 conquest of , when appointed the Orthodox scholar Gennadios II Scholarios as Ecumenical , granting the Rum millet extensive jurisdiction over Greek Orthodox affairs across the Balkans and Anatolia. This co-optation integrated existing ecclesiastical structures into the Ottoman framework, ensuring the church's role in collecting the jizya poll tax and suppressing dissent, which stabilized rule over newly incorporated Christian-majority regions prone to Byzantine revivalism. Similarly, the formal recognition of the Jewish millet after the 1492 influx of Sephardic refugees from Spain—numbering tens of thousands—leveraged rabbinical courts for self-regulation, channeling their economic expertise into imperial trade networks without necessitating cultural assimilation. These arrangements reduced administrative overhead, as millet heads assumed fiscal accountability, preventing tax shortfalls that plagued less flexible empires. Over centuries, this framework sustained cohesion amid territorial expansion, enabling the empire to govern heterogeneous populations—from Balkan Orthodox to Levantine Armenians—without widespread forced conversions or revolts until the rise of 19th-century nationalism. During the classical period (16th–18th centuries), the system's emphasis on confessional intermediaries preserved social order by internalizing dispute resolution, as evidenced by the Orthodox patriarchate's maintenance of ecclesiastical discipline amid 's (r. 1520–1566) conquests, which doubled the empire's land area. Fiscal reliability further bolstered stability, with millets guaranteeing revenue streams like the cizye, which constituted a significant portion of state income until the 1830s, allowing resources for military campaigns that reinforced central dominance. Historians such as Karen Barkey attribute the Ottoman longevity—spanning over 600 years—partly to this tolerant yet controlled pluralism, which accommodated difference without eroding the sultan's ultimate sovereignty.

Criticisms and Systemic Flaws

Inherent Hierarchies and Discriminatory Practices

The millet system enshrined a hierarchical social and legal order rooted in Islamic doctrine, positioning Muslims as the dominant ruling class while relegating non-Muslims—designated as dhimmis—to a protected but subordinate status within semi-autonomous religious communities. Under this framework, established by the 15th century and formalized through imperial firmans, non-Muslims were granted communal self-governance in matters like education, marriage, and religious observance, but only insofar as it did not challenge Ottoman sovereignty or Islamic supremacy; millet leaders, such as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch or Armenian Catholicos, were appointed or confirmed by the Sultan and held personally accountable for their communities' loyalty and tax obligations, often leading to internal authoritarianism within millets to ensure compliance. This structure inherently discriminated by denying non-Muslims access to high military or administrative offices, restricting their political influence, and subjecting them to sharia-derived inequalities that prioritized Muslim rights and testimony. Fiscal discrimination was central, manifested through the jizya poll tax levied exclusively on able-bodied adult non-Muslim males as a symbol of submission and exemption from with rates varying by wealth but often burdensome—estimated at 1-4 dirhams annually per person in the 16th century, collected humiliatingly in public ceremonies until reforms in the 19th century. Non-Muslims also faced additional levies like the haraç land tax, which Muslims evaded through zakat exemptions, reinforcing economic subordination; failure to pay could result in imprisonment or forced labor, as documented in Ottoman tax registers from the classical period. Legally, dhimmis encountered systemic biases in sharia courts, where their testimony against Muslims was inadmissible, effectively shielding Muslims from accountability in intercommunal disputes and skewing justice toward the ruling faith— a rule codified in Ottoman kanun alongside qanun decrees, persisting until the 19th-century Tanzimat era. Social and cultural restrictions further entrenched including sumptuary laws mandating distinctive —such as blue turbans for and yellow for by the —to visibly mark inferiority and prevent assimilation; prohibitions on building new churches or synagogues without imperial permission, loud bell-ringing, or proselytizing; and bans on bearing arms or riding saddled horses in urban areas, symbolizing second-class status. The devşirme system, operational from the 14th to 17th centuries, exemplified coercive practices tied to millet oversight, forcibly recruiting an estimated 200,000 Christian boys annually at peak (primarily from Balkan Orthodox communities) for conversion to Islam, military training as Janissaries, and elite service, severing family ties and erasing ethnic identities under threat of death for resistance. While millet autonomy ostensibly mitigated some abuses, it often enabled corrupt leaders to impose internal taxes or exactions, exacerbating intra-communal exploitation amid overarching Islamic hierarchy, as critiqued by historians for perpetuating subjugation rather than equality.

Internal Dysfunctions and Abuses

Millet leaders, empowered with judicial, educational, and fiscal authority over their communities, often engaged in self-enrichment at the expense of their constituents, as the system's design provided limited oversight from the Ottoman state. Patriarchs and chief rabbis frequently purchased their positions through bribes to Ottoman officials, then recouped costs by imposing excessive levies and fees on community members, exacerbating economic burdens during periods of imperial decline. This practice was rampant in the Greek Orthodox millet, where the Ecumenical Patriarchate's hierarchical structure mirrored broader Ottoman corruption, with each level extracting resources downward to the laity. Tax collection within millets, akin to Ottoman iltizam (tax farming), incentivized leaders to maximize short-term extractions, leading to over-taxation and arbitrary assessments that disproportionately affected lower classes and rural populations. In the Orthodox millet, Phanariote elites—Greek administrators controlling key positions—leveraged their influence to monopolize trade and appointments, fostering nepotism and internal exploitation while amassing personal wealth. Such abuses eroded communal trust, as leaders prioritized alliances with the Sublime Porte over member welfare, often selling ecclesiastical offices to recover investment costs. Judicial autonomy compounded these issues, enabling millet courts to enforce discriminatory internal hierarchies, such as favoring urban elites over peasants or enforcing rigid communal norms without appeal mechanisms. Reports from the 18th century highlight instances where Orthodox bishops and rabbis abused excommunication or fines for personal vendettas or to suppress dissent, contributing to social fragmentation within millets. This lack of accountability, rooted in the system's delegation of governance to unmonitored intermediaries, undermined the millets' purported stability, as empirical patterns of recurring scandals—evident in frequent patriarchal depositions—demonstrated systemic vulnerability to power concentration.

Catalysts for Ethnic and Nationalist Tensions

The millet system's confessional framework, which granted to religious communities under leaders accountable to the Ottoman state, increasingly clashed with the emergence of ethnic nationalism in the as European Enlightenment ideas and revolutionary fervor inspired subject peoples to prioritize linguistic and cultural identities over religious affiliation. This shift transformed millets from stabilizing institutions into conduits for separatist agitation, as communal elites repurposed religious networks for undermining imperial cohesion. Within the Orthodox Rum millet, dominated by Greek Phanariote hierarchies in Constantinople, Slavic groups like Serbs and Bulgarians chafed under imposed Hellenic cultural and ecclesiastical control, fostering intra-communal rivalries that erupted into autonomy demands. The First Serbian Uprising of 1804, triggered by janissary abuses but amplified by millet grievances, evolved into sustained resistance, securing Serbian autonomy by 1815 and full independence recognition in 1830 through the Treaty of Adrianople. Similarly, Bulgarian intellectuals and clergy contested Greek dominance, leading to the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870 via firman from Sultan Abdülaziz, which formalized a separate Bulgarian millet encompassing 15 dioceses and explicitly incorporated ethnic criteria, prompting the Ecumenical Patriarchate to declare a schism in 1872 on grounds of phyletism—introducing nationalism into church governance. The Greek War of Independence (1821–1830) exemplified how millet structures inadvertently enabled rebellion: the Orthodox hierarchy's control over education, courts, and taxation provided logistical networks for revolutionaries, despite Patriarch Gregory V's excommunication of leaders like Alexandros Ypsilantis, resulting in the execution of the patriarch on Easter 1821 and eventual Greek sovereignty via the 1830 London Protocol. Tanzimat reforms, inaugurated by the 1839 Gülhane Edict under Sultan Abdülmecid I, aimed to centralize authority and extend equal legal protections to non-Muslims, curtailing millet privileges in taxation, conscription, and jurisdiction while abolishing the jizya poll tax in the 1856 Reform Edict. Yet these measures provoked backlash from millet patriarchs fearing diminished influence, while failing to address ethnic aspirations, as reformers underestimated nationalism's erosion of religious solidarity and inadvertently accelerated demands for sovereign nation-states. Persistent dhimmi disabilities under the system—such as bans on proselytism, restrictions on church bells and heights, and testimony inequalities in mixed courts—reinforced second-class status, galvanizing irredentist movements that European powers exploited via capitulatory privileges, culminating in Balkan secessions during the 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish and 1912–1913 Balkan Wars. Thus, the millet's delegation of governance to confessional elites preserved diversity at the cost of integration, supplying both the grievances and organizational tools for ethnic fragmentation.

Legacy and Contemporary Analysis

Impacts on Post-Imperial Nation-States

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire following its defeat in World War I and the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 prompted successor states to either dismantle or adapt the millet system's confessional framework, often prioritizing ethnic or national homogeneity over religious autonomy. In the Republic of Turkey, established in 1923 under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the millet structure was explicitly rejected in favor of secular nationalism. Key reforms included the abolition of the caliphate on March 3, 1924, the adoption of a secular on February 17, that replaced millet-based personal laws with unified Swiss-inspired and the subordination of religious institutions to state oversight through the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı). These measures aimed to erode communal religious identities in favor of a Turkish civic nation, though residual millet legacies persisted in shaping identity politics, as religion continued to influence social cohesion amid ethnic diversity. The millet system's religious categorization profoundly influenced demographic policies in the Balkans and Anatolia, facilitating forced population transfers to achieve national uniformity. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne mandated the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, relocating approximately 1.2 million Orthodox Christians from Turkey to Greece and 400,000 Muslims from Greece to Turkey, explicitly using religious criteria inherited from classifications rather than ethnicity or language. Similar exchanges occurred in the Balkans post-1912-1913 wars, where emerging states like Bulgaria and Serbia treated Muslim communities—formerly under millet protections—as alien elements, leading to expulsions and discriminatory policies that echoed but inverted Ottoman hierarchies by privileging Christian majorities. Scholars debate the extent of direct continuity, with some attributing Balkan states' confessional discrimination to manufactured rather than Ottoman inheritance, yet empirical patterns of minority exclusion align with millet-fostered divisions that hindered cross-communal integration. In the Levant, particularly Lebanon, millet principles evolved into institutionalized confessionalism, perpetuating sectarian power-sharing as a governance model. The 1943 National Pact allocated political offices by religious sect—presidency to Maronites, premiership to Sunnis, and speakership to Shiites—mirroring Ottoman devolution of authority to communal leaders, a system reinforced by the 1989 Taif Agreement amid civil war. This neo-milletism stabilized short-term diversity but entrenched divisions, contributing to recurring conflicts by tying citizenship and representation to faith rather than merit or equality, as evidenced by Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war that killed over 150,000 and displaced hundreds of thousands. Overall, the millets' emphasis on religious over national solidarity catalyzed separatist nationalisms in successor states, fostering instability where homogeneity was pursued through exclusion and where pluralism retained confessional rigidity.

Scholarly Debates on Tolerance vs. Subjugation

Scholars have long debated the millet system's character, with some portraying it as a pioneering model of religious tolerance that enabled non-Muslim communities—primarily Orthodox Christians, Armenians, and Jews—to maintain internal autonomy in matters of education, marriage, inheritance, and religious practice under Ottoman rule from the 15th to 19th centuries. This perspective emphasizes the system's role in stabilizing a multi-ethnic empire by granting millet leaders, such as patriarchs and rabbis, authority to collect taxes, adjudicate disputes, and represent their groups to the sultan, arguably surpassing the intolerance of religious minorities in contemporary Europe, where expulsions and forced conversions were common. Historian Bernard Lewis, for instance, described the arrangement as offering "a degree of tolerance without precedent or parallel in Christian Europe," allowing free practice of religion within communal bounds while preserving imperial cohesion. Critics counter that this autonomy masked a hierarchical subjugation rooted in the Islamic dhimma pact, which classified non-Muslims as protected but inferior subjects (dhimmis) obligated to pay the jizya poll tax—exempting Muslims—and endure legal disabilities, such as limited testimony rights in mixed courts, prohibitions on bearing arms, and restrictions on constructing or repairing places of worship without permission. These measures, enforced variably but systematically, perpetuated social and economic discrimination, including dress codes distinguishing dhimmis (e.g., distinctive headgear until the 19th century) and vulnerability to arbitrary violence or extortion by local officials, fostering long-term grievances that fueled 19th-century nationalist revolts. Bat Ye'or and others analyzing argue the system was not egalitarian pluralism but institutionalized dominance, where tolerance served pragmatic control rather than principled equality, with non-Muslim communities bearing disproportionate fiscal burdens to subsidize Muslim governance. Even Lewis acknowledged that Muslim societies "neither gave equal status to non-Muslims nor," highlighting inherent asymmetries. The debate reflects broader historiographical tensions, with earlier 20th-century narratives—often influenced by Ottomanist apologetics—idealizing the millet as a multicultural success, while post-colonial and revisionist analyses, drawing on archival tax records and court documents, underscore its role in "divide and rule" segmentation that stifled intercommunal integration and individual rights. For example, studies of the system's application reveal inconsistencies, such as exclusion of nomadic Muslim groups like from millet frameworks, challenging claims of uniform tolerance and suggesting it prioritized administrative efficiency over justice. Empirical evidence from Ottoman censuses indicates non-Muslims comprised up to 40% of the population in core provinces by the 16th century yet faced recurrent pogroms and forced conversions during crises, like the 17th-century , undermining assertions of benign coexistence. Contemporary scholars increasingly view the millet not as proto-modern federalism but as a pre-nationalist relic whose discriminatory core contributed to the empire's fragmentation, as reforms like the 1839 Tanzimat Edict exposed and exacerbated its inequities by promising equality that millets resisted.

References

  1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-muslims-christians-and-jews-in-the-middle-east/ottoman-experience/514D5BF45A6732E3CD90B1DA1EC7784C
  2. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17449057.2015.1101845
  3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341353394_The_Millet_System_in_the_Ottoman_Empire
  4. https://academic.oup.com/book/7146/chapter/151694811
  5. https://fountainmagazine.com/all-issues/2002/issue-40-october-december-2002/the-status-of-dhimmis-in-the-ottoman-empire
  6. https://www.thecollector.com/how-religion-influenced-law-ottoman-empire/
  7. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780195390155/obo-9780195390155-0231.xml
  8. https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/211umar.html
  9. https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/JAT/article/download/12974/9174/30295
  10. https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/25699/how-is-quran-929-interpreted-by-classical-scholars-fight-those-who-believe-no
  11. https://study.com/academy/lesson/millets-ottoman-empire-system-history-concept-facts.html
  12. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5271243
  13. https://www.academia.edu/13022450/The_Myth_of_the_Ottoman_Millet_System_Its_Treatment_of_Kurds_and_a_Discussion_of_Territorial_and_Non_Territorial_Autonomy
  14. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2156&context=lawreview
  15. https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=history_undergrad_theses
  16. https://easy-history.com/governing-gods-people-religion-and-rule-in-the-ottoman-middle-east/
  17. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.31826/9781463225605-008/html
  18. https://www.academia.edu/126746204/The_Office_of_Sheikh_Ul_Islam_in_The_Ottoman_Empire_and_The_Official_Ceremonies_in_Which_the_Sheikh_Ul_Islam_Participated
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311680222_Ottoman_Institutions_Millet_System_1250_to_1920_Middle_East
  20. https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1379&context=ree
  21. https://www.academia.edu/25650388/Islam_and_Pluralism_The_Ottoman_Millet_System
  22. https://www.armenianorthodoxchurch.org/en/the-armenian-church/hierarchical-sees
  23. https://brewminate.com/armenians-in-the-ottoman-empire/
  24. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2296001
  25. https://www.jewishgen.org/databases/TURKEY/TurkishChiefRabbis.html
  26. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EJIO/COM-0008940.xml?language=en
  27. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789004216846/BP000004.pdf
  28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4467038
  29. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hakham-bashi
  30. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-1913.1967.tb01260.x
  31. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0FEB1DF386C3391C70C2B03C42AC24E0/S0010417525100121a.pdf/the-millet-paradigm-on-difference-in-the-late-ottoman-empire.pdf
  32. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA514376.pdf
  33. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.31826/9781463236922-005/html
  34. https://przegladhumanistyczny.pl/seo/article/534109/en
  35. https://www.islamiqate.com/1020/when-were-the-various-ottoman-millets-created
  36. https://isamveri.org/pdfdrg/D02894/2011_12/2011_12_KENANOGLUMM.pdf
  37. http://100years100facts.com/facts/armenian-patriarchate-constantinople-established-1461/
  38. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/5059027
  39. https://nyu.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.18574/nyu/9780814771167.001.0001/upso-9780814771167-chapter-004
  40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366001459_Conceptualizing_interreligious_relations_in_the_Ottoman_Empire_The_early_modern_centuries
  41. https://www.vfast.org/journals/index.php/VTIR/article/viewFile/599/648
  42. https://idefe.balkanfoundation.com/catalog/download/19/19/288?inline=1
  43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12682
  44. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400878765-006/html
  45. https://digitalarchive.library.bogazici.edu.tr/bitstreams/8f67eb97-7b99-4568-a28b-c3667f8bbd81/download
  46. https://www.librakitap.com.tr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=572:nationalist-schism-in-the-empire-tanzimat-reforms-and-the-establishment-of-the-bulgarian-exarchate&catid=10&Itemid=105
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267516300_From_Rum_Millet_to_Greek_and_Bulgarian_Nations_Religious_and_National_Debates_in_the_Borderlands_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_1870-1913
  48. https://www.academic.oup.com/book/7146/chapter/151694811
  49. https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Turkeyconstitution1924.pdf
  50. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/culture-and-order-in-world-politics/ottomans-and-diversity/54A0E0F3A494E8D122C7F8C4700D5ECC
  51. https://worldhistoryconnected.press.uillinois.edu/18.3/pdfs/05_WHC_18_3_Freitag.pdf
  52. https://www.academia.edu/19822152/THE_OTTOMAN_MILLET_SYSTEM_NON_TERRITORIAL_AUTONOMY_AND_ITS_CONTEMPORARY_LEGACY
  53. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/empire-of-difference/maintaining-empire-an-expression-of-tolerance/9F8981B7931A7B2AD5EB832D775C592C
  54. https://academic.oup.com/book/12584/chapter/162411450
  55. https://www.academia.edu/35652596/Dhimmitude_and_the_Ottoman_Empire_%25C7%2582
  56. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004297210/B9789004297210_017.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOoqJ7fD3BGqukZyr_XgYGRVKOoG178gRRP9PhqPzNR6lMNjpqRZ_
  57. https://www.academia.edu/21919350/The_Christians_under_Ottoman_Rule_in_the_writings_of_18th_century_Historians_of_Bilad_Al_Sham
  58. https://saintandrewgoc.org/blog/2016/5/24/christian-greek-orthodox-under-islamic-rule-and-enslavement-1453-1821
  59. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Ottoman_rule_and_Eastern_Christianity
  60. https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/church-history/seventeenth-century/the-greek-church-under-the-turks
  61. https://academic.oup.com/book/7146/chapter/151706292
  62. https://www.academia.edu/8066205/Tax_Farming_in_the_Early_Ottoman_State
  63. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=ugra
  64. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1115&context=cmc_theses
  65. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=ijli
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361465546_Religious_freedom_and_millet_during_the_Tanzimat_Reform
  67. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/islam-secularism-and-nationalism-modern-turkey-who-turk
  68. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-greece-population-exchange-painful-yearning-lost-past
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233150739_Millets_in_Nation-States_The_Case_of_Greek_and_Bulgarian_Muslims_1912-1923
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330961112_Nation-building_policies_in_the_Balkans_an_Ottoman_or_a_manufactured_legacy
  71. https://academic.oup.com/book/6843/chapter/151060380
  72. https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/files/86150397/Cavalcanti-Parrilli.pdf
  73. https://sackett.net/lewis_what-went-wrong.pdf
  74. https://www.jstor.org/stable/176219
  75. https://www.academia.edu/91875318/Dhimmitude_and_the_Ottoman_Empire_The_Subjugation_of_Non_Muslims
  76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26868022
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.