4 ms·
I am only talking about religious tolerance, and only to contrast it with the modern radical islamic hateful version. Of course the ottomans were invaders and t
by return0 10y ago
I am only talking about religious tolerance, and only to contrast it with the modern radical islamic hateful version. Of course the ottomans were invaders and they did commit atrocities. The Jannissaries however were not primarily a means of inflicting terror or to promote conversion to islam. By (forcefully) recruiting non-muslim boys, who thus did not have family connections to power, the Jannissaries were guaranteed to be faithful to their masters (same reason why they weren't allowed to marry). They were well compensated and were high ranking officers ; They could be compared with the use of Eunuchs in china.
- acqq 10y ago> The Jannissaries however were not primarily a means of inflicting terror or to promote conversion to islam. Excuse me? "Not primarily to inflict terror"? The custom of mothers making their own children disabled with their own hands only to prevent them being taken away, their old memories destroyed, is not the result of the terror? The total number of people living there was much smaller then than today. The non-muslim boys were regularly taken away from their families and converted to Islam. The forceful conversion existed, the pressure to non-muslims existed (and that was surely not the only one) exactly to push the non-muslims to finally convert, which actually succeeded among Albanians and in Bosnia. And that explains the religious separation of that part of Europe today. There were no Muslims there before. Now millions. Not to mention that the Ottomans very non-peacefully fought wars up until Vienna, which was under siege twice. Start with 1359 then look at the following pictures through the years here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#1359 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_O...