3 ms·

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

by gkya 8y 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 8y 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
- gkya 8y ago
  While I will not dispute the Empire did cause all its region to become stagnant and backwards in comparison to Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe (because that's an indisputable fact), both you as a Serb and I as a Turk should be very careful and sceptic with regards to national historical narratives of our respective countries, because they are infested with lies and misrepresentations, like in all over what was Ottoman territory in Asia Minor and the Balkans. The shitshow that 19th century through WWI was in this region has produced the worst incarnations of nationalist states that have caused the bloodiest of massacres and the worst of baseless yet pertinent illusions. If I return to the actual topic, while I do agree that the Ottoman Empire was not a time of glory for the Eastern Christians, and that we all can be glad that it does not exist any longer, most of that time was way better than most national narratives represent it, including that of Turkey up until quite recently (now there's a wave of neo-Ottomanism here, based on anachronic and nationalistic illusions on what the empire was; before, the view of the Empire was not much different here that what you describe).
  - dragandj 8y ago
    I think we agree more than we disagree. My comment was mentioned to highlight that in many practical ways, the Christian population was practically enslaved to the Muslim overlords (regardless whether them being "real" Turks, or, more commonly, local converts, or even Janissaries). Much more than a Christian serfdom was a lightweight variation on slavery. Christian population as a whole had very little to choose whether their children will be taken away and become Janssaries, at least until late times, and once taken away, those people had very little influence about their career choices. They were slaves in all practical ways the slavery means. For some exceptions, that slavery turned out to lead to high positions (like Sokollu) but, on the other hand, if the subject population retained their independence, talented people like Sokollu might have had opportunity to build up their local communities/states, instead of conquering the world for Ottoman sultans? :) PS. I am personally an atheist, so I do not tend to look at the things here from the Christianity: right; Islam: wrong perspective.
    - gkya 8y ago

by gkya 8y ago

dragandj 8y 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

gkya 8y ago
While I will not dispute the Empire did cause all its region to become stagnant and backwards in comparison to Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe (because that's an indisputable fact), both you as a Serb and I as a Turk should be very careful and sceptic with regards to national historical narratives of our respective countries, because they are infested with lies and misrepresentations, like in all over what was Ottoman territory in Asia Minor and the Balkans. The shitshow that 19th century through WWI was in this region has produced the worst incarnations of nationalist states that have caused the bloodiest of massacres and the worst of baseless yet pertinent illusions. If I return to the actual topic, while I do agree that the Ottoman Empire was not a time of glory for the Eastern Christians, and that we all can be glad that it does not exist any longer, most of that time was way better than most national narratives represent it, including that of Turkey up until quite recently (now there's a wave of neo-Ottomanism here, based on anachronic and nationalistic illusions on what the empire was; before, the view of the Empire was not much different here that what you describe).
- dragandj 8y ago
  I think we agree more than we disagree. My comment was mentioned to highlight that in many practical ways, the Christian population was practically enslaved to the Muslim overlords (regardless whether them being "real" Turks, or, more commonly, local converts, or even Janissaries). Much more than a Christian serfdom was a lightweight variation on slavery. Christian population as a whole had very little to choose whether their children will be taken away and become Janssaries, at least until late times, and once taken away, those people had very little influence about their career choices. They were slaves in all practical ways the slavery means. For some exceptions, that slavery turned out to lead to high positions (like Sokollu) but, on the other hand, if the subject population retained their independence, talented people like Sokollu might have had opportunity to build up their local communities/states, instead of conquering the world for Ottoman sultans? :) PS. I am personally an atheist, so I do not tend to look at the things here from the Christianity: right; Islam: wrong perspective.
  - gkya 8y ago