3 ms·

I think Machiavelli's was worried that the mercs would take over. Which is effectively happened in India princes and kings hiring foreign mercs from France and

I think Machiavelli's was worried that the mercs would take over. Which is effectively happened in India princes and kings hiring foreign mercs from France and Britain. Another example is the Janissaries in turkey.

azernik 9y ago
Machiavelli wasn't just "worried"; he'd seen it be attempted (sometimes successfully). Facino Cane, Vitellozzo Vitelli, and famously Francesco Sforza. (Often this would happen on the death of the previous hereditary ruler, or through taking independent control of territories conquered in an employer's name.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facino_Cane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facino_Cane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitellozzo_Vitelli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitellozzo_Vitelli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_I_Sforza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_I_Sforza
dragandj 9y ago
Janissaries were slave-warriors rather than mercenaries, though.
- walshemj 9y ago
  true though they did later on wield massive power
- gkya 9y ago
  Slave-warriors in the name only though. They were literally one of the most powerful classes in the entirety of the empire for many centuries, after the dynasty and the dirigents themselves.
  - dragandj 9y ago
    Sure, but they were not mercenaries. They did not enroll, but were taken from their families in occupied lands as small children, raised and educated as warriors, and the only career option they had, and family they knew of is the army.
    - gkya 9y ago
      Certainly. I just wanted to clarify what "slave-warrior" meant in this context, because in itself the word makes me think of actual slaves living in misery and getting thrown onto enemies to keep them busy getting killed. Originally janissaries were taken forcefully, but the careers they made, many families bribed the collectors to pick their children, and later, muslims too forced the govenrment to make the concession of accepting their children into janissary "ocak"s. Not only, but janissaries started getting families (forbidden initially), and making their children janissaries too, and thus the corruption of the janissaries. Also, janissaries were not mere warriors. They took part in many activities and had many responsabilities in peace time. E.g. the firemen of Constantinople were janissaries. They were also the ruling elite in some remote parts of the empire. BTW while "taken from their families" is correct, many kept ties with the families. The Sokollu dynasty of grand viziers who practically ruled the empire for decades were taken the same way, but the first of Sokollus, Mehmen Sokollu, was not only able to pass on his position to his relatives, he re-established the Serbian Orthodox Church and got his brother to become its patriarch. We can discuss the humanitarian aspects of this, but practically, these people are not slaves at all; in fact, thinking that these people were slaves is downplaying what a disaster actual slavery is.
      - dragandj 9y ago
        I am living in Serbia and, although you are right about Mehtmet-Pasha Sokolovic (Sokollu), it was certainly not the norm. It is difficult to judge different times from the modern perspective, but the actual term that is used for the period of Serbian history from the 14th to 19th century is "Turkish enslavement". Whether it is worse to live as a Christian "raya" under Ottomans or a serf under Christian kings is maybe open to discussion, but no one here consider that time as a glorious time of the opportunity for Serbian/Christian culture here. Quite the opposite, it stagnated the whole Balkan region from one of the centers of European culture to the backwaters. PS. There is a book by the Nobel laureate Ivo Andric about exactly the times of Sokollu, that HN readers might find interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_Drina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_Drina
        9y ago

azernik 9y ago

Machiavelli wasn't just "worried"; he'd seen it be attempted (sometimes successfully). Facino Cane, Vitellozzo Vitelli, and famously Francesco Sforza. (Often this would happen on the death of the previous hereditary ruler, or through taking independent control of territories conquered in an employer's name.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facino_Cane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facino_Cane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitellozzo_Vitelli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitellozzo_Vitelli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_I_Sforza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_I_Sforza

dragandj 9y ago

Janissaries were slave-warriors rather than mercenaries, though.

walshemj 9y ago
true though they did later on wield massive power
gkya 9y ago
Slave-warriors in the name only though. They were literally one of the most powerful classes in the entirety of the empire for many centuries, after the dynasty and the dirigents themselves.
- dragandj 9y ago
  Sure, but they were not mercenaries. They did not enroll, but were taken from their families in occupied lands as small children, raised and educated as warriors, and the only career option they had, and family they knew of is the army.
  - gkya 9y ago
    Certainly. I just wanted to clarify what "slave-warrior" meant in this context, because in itself the word makes me think of actual slaves living in misery and getting thrown onto enemies to keep them busy getting killed. Originally janissaries were taken forcefully, but the careers they made, many families bribed the collectors to pick their children, and later, muslims too forced the govenrment to make the concession of accepting their children into janissary "ocak"s. Not only, but janissaries started getting families (forbidden initially), and making their children janissaries too, and thus the corruption of the janissaries. Also, janissaries were not mere warriors. They took part in many activities and had many responsabilities in peace time. E.g. the firemen of Constantinople were janissaries. They were also the ruling elite in some remote parts of the empire. BTW while "taken from their families" is correct, many kept ties with the families. The Sokollu dynasty of grand viziers who practically ruled the empire for decades were taken the same way, but the first of Sokollus, Mehmen Sokollu, was not only able to pass on his position to his relatives, he re-established the Serbian Orthodox Church and got his brother to become its patriarch. We can discuss the humanitarian aspects of this, but practically, these people are not slaves at all; in fact, thinking that these people were slaves is downplaying what a disaster actual slavery is.
    - dragandj 9y ago
      I am living in Serbia and, although you are right about Mehtmet-Pasha Sokolovic (Sokollu), it was certainly not the norm. It is difficult to judge different times from the modern perspective, but the actual term that is used for the period of Serbian history from the 14th to 19th century is "Turkish enslavement". Whether it is worse to live as a Christian "raya" under Ottomans or a serf under Christian kings is maybe open to discussion, but no one here consider that time as a glorious time of the opportunity for Serbian/Christian culture here. Quite the opposite, it stagnated the whole Balkan region from one of the centers of European culture to the backwaters. PS. There is a book by the Nobel laureate Ivo Andric about exactly the times of Sokollu, that HN readers might find interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_Drina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_Drina
      - 9y ago