6 ms·

This is a very honest and informative historical documentary. I don't see any statments that would work in favour of some country or another's political agenda.

This is a very honest and informative historical documentary. I don't see any statments that would work in favour of some country or another's political agenda. Pretty rare we get these.

acqq 8y ago
> I don't see any statments The whole text, starting from the title, is "making it nice" in the modern tendency of some who like to imply that what was actually vile was "good" or "not so bad." How many boys were taken? The OP text mentions hundreds, but that was after the point which was in Wikipedia specified as the "end of the system" (1) whereas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme "Shaw writes that their number was 30,000 under Suleiman the Magnificent" - that is, that was the size of the army. More important: "Devshirme[a] (Ottoman Turkish: دوشيرمه‎, devşirme, literally "lifting" or "collecting"), also known as the blood tax or tribute in blood,[2] was chiefly the practice where by the Ottoman Empire sent military officers to take Christian boys, ages 8 to 18, from their families in Eastern and Southeastern Europe in order that they be raised to serve the state.[3] This tax of sons was imposed only on the Christian subjects of the empire, in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia." "The ideal age of a recruit was between 8 and 10 years of age" What's actually "not so bad" in taking the 8-10 years old children away to maintain the army of 30000? Read the argument of the article: "Beyond ‘slave soldiers’" "Essentially, they displayed their ‘slave’ status with pride" --- oh, that makes it OK then? The boys taken from their families when they are 8 to be slave solders for life, but "displayed their ‘slave’ status with pride" somehow is an argument that their status is "misleading, if perceived through the lens of our modern sensibility" (the article tries to argue). Really? ---- 1) Under the title of "Decline": 1638 or 1648 "In an order sent in multiple copies to authorities throughout the European provinces in 1666 a devshirme recruitment target of between 300 and 320 was set for an area covering the whole of the central and western Balkans." That was the "official end" according to Wikipedia: "only 300 and 320." Per year, or per month?
- freeflight 8y ago
  > The whole text, starting from the title, is "making it nice" in the modern tendency of some of implying that what was actually bad was good. The thing is, it's neither "bad" nor "good", it's just history. And in that context, the Janissaries are quite an interesting case because their history is filled with very extreme ups and downs. > "Beyond ‘slave soldiers’" "Essentially, they displayed their ‘slave’ status with pride" --- oh, that makes it OK then? If you'd read the whole Wiki article, instead of just quoting the passages that support your notion, you'd also realized that their position immensely changed over the centuries. Yes, they started out as a "slave soldier" unit in the thousands, made up of forced converts. But their efficiency on the battlefield quickly made them a very renowned unit, so renowned that over time even Muslim families tried to get their children to be recruited. This went on for a while until the Janissaries became such a powerful institution that they dominated the Ottoman government and could literally dethrone the Sultan, which they actually did, even killing Osman II in 1622. Until in 1826, after centuries of Janissaries running wild, the Sultan Mahmud II decided "enough is enough" and "disbanded" the Janissaries corps in what is nowadays known as the Auspicious Incident [0]. So, while they started out as a forced conversion soldier group, they ultimately turned into something very different. Heck, I'd like to think them destabilizing the Ottoman empire like they did, was their form of revenge. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident
  - acqq 8y ago
    > so renowned that over time even Muslim families tried to get their children to be recruited. Being "renowned" and having a pair of examples of some who actually gave away their sons (for whatever benefit they expected, these were hard times) doesn't mean that forcibly taking the boys "as a tax" away from their families makes it less vile. Compare: "I'm sure" that some black Africans "gave" their sons to be slaves to the Western men, so there was "more to the forced slavery of blacks" than our "modern sensitivities" say to us. See? In reality the children were "collected" regularly, by force, by the soldiers coming to the villages and taking the 8-10 year old boys away. And researching the subject, there are also stories among the Christians who were the target that the mothers had to harm their own children, making them disabled and unsuitable for being soldiers only to manage to keep them from being taken away.
- tarcyanm 8y ago
  At the same time, this pales in comparison to what took place under the Spartan agoge system (at least to modern minds): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge
benj111 8y ago
Is it not that there are 2 sides to every argument? The final section is very anti Janissary, and paints the Sultan in a positive light, despite executing and exiling previously loyal subjects. What is their story of their 'disbanding'?
- mda 8y ago
  Getting killed under cannon fire in their own barracks, not a nice end for an order which served for so many years. The destructon of bektashi order was also a decision with long reaching consequences. Still, what most people believes that towards the end they were corrupt beyond any hope of rehabilitation or modernization. Earlier, Murad IV could restore the order after killing of Osman II by Jannisaries but it was mostly downhill after that. The abolishment of Jannisaries is known as "Vaka-i hayriye, Auspicious event".
paulnechifor 8y ago
It's not honest. It glosses over bad aspects. Take the blood tribute[1]. It mentions that some parents would allow their children to be taken, but it doesn't mention that some others considered it so bad that they would mutilate their children to avoid them being kidnapped. It doesn't mention that they were forcefully circumcised and converted to Islam. Muslim laws say that you're not allowed to have Muslim slaves, but the Ottomans were all to happy to ignore this. It says that the "recruitment" (to be kind) age varied anywhere between 8 and 20. That's completely misleading since the ideal age was 8 to 10. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme
- nurettin 8y ago
  It helps to distinguish between being critical of the article and being critical/morally judging the happenings within an empire between 15-17th centuries. Your criticism of the article is lie by omission, your moral judgement is irrelevant. Lie by omission requires an agenda. AFAICS this article doesn't defend the idea of taking young boys from their families and treating them as muslim kids and conscripting them when age comes. It just informs about the notion and historical effects.
hnuser1234 8y ago
Honest? The premise is of the article is "Okay, maybe the Janissaries were taken as slaves as children but here's why that's a good thing."

This is a very honest and informative historical documentary. I don't see any statments that would work in favour of some country or another's political agenda. Pretty rare we get these.

acqq 8y ago

> I don't see any statments The whole text, starting from the title, is "making it nice" in the modern tendency of some who like to imply that what was actually vile was "good" or "not so bad." How many boys were taken? The OP text mentions hundreds, but that was after the point which was in Wikipedia specified as the "end of the system" (1) whereas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme "Shaw writes that their number was 30,000 under Suleiman the Magnificent" - that is, that was the size of the army. More important: "Devshirme[a] (Ottoman Turkish: دوشيرمه‎, devşirme, literally "lifting" or "collecting"), also known as the blood tax or tribute in blood,[2] was chiefly the practice where by the Ottoman Empire sent military officers to take Christian boys, ages 8 to 18, from their families in Eastern and Southeastern Europe in order that they be raised to serve the state.[3] This tax of sons was imposed only on the Christian subjects of the empire, in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia." "The ideal age of a recruit was between 8 and 10 years of age" What's actually "not so bad" in taking the 8-10 years old children away to maintain the army of 30000? Read the argument of the article: "Beyond ‘slave soldiers’" "Essentially, they displayed their ‘slave’ status with pride" --- oh, that makes it OK then? The boys taken from their families when they are 8 to be slave solders for life, but "displayed their ‘slave’ status with pride" somehow is an argument that their status is "misleading, if perceived through the lens of our modern sensibility" (the article tries to argue). Really? ---- 1) Under the title of "Decline": 1638 or 1648 "In an order sent in multiple copies to authorities throughout the European provinces in 1666 a devshirme recruitment target of between 300 and 320 was set for an area covering the whole of the central and western Balkans." That was the "official end" according to Wikipedia: "only 300 and 320." Per year, or per month?

freeflight 8y ago
> The whole text, starting from the title, is "making it nice" in the modern tendency of some of implying that what was actually bad was good. The thing is, it's neither "bad" nor "good", it's just history. And in that context, the Janissaries are quite an interesting case because their history is filled with very extreme ups and downs. > "Beyond ‘slave soldiers’" "Essentially, they displayed their ‘slave’ status with pride" --- oh, that makes it OK then? If you'd read the whole Wiki article, instead of just quoting the passages that support your notion, you'd also realized that their position immensely changed over the centuries. Yes, they started out as a "slave soldier" unit in the thousands, made up of forced converts. But their efficiency on the battlefield quickly made them a very renowned unit, so renowned that over time even Muslim families tried to get their children to be recruited. This went on for a while until the Janissaries became such a powerful institution that they dominated the Ottoman government and could literally dethrone the Sultan, which they actually did, even killing Osman II in 1622. Until in 1826, after centuries of Janissaries running wild, the Sultan Mahmud II decided "enough is enough" and "disbanded" the Janissaries corps in what is nowadays known as the Auspicious Incident [0]. So, while they started out as a forced conversion soldier group, they ultimately turned into something very different. Heck, I'd like to think them destabilizing the Ottoman empire like they did, was their form of revenge. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident
- acqq 8y ago
  > so renowned that over time even Muslim families tried to get their children to be recruited. Being "renowned" and having a pair of examples of some who actually gave away their sons (for whatever benefit they expected, these were hard times) doesn't mean that forcibly taking the boys "as a tax" away from their families makes it less vile. Compare: "I'm sure" that some black Africans "gave" their sons to be slaves to the Western men, so there was "more to the forced slavery of blacks" than our "modern sensitivities" say to us. See? In reality the children were "collected" regularly, by force, by the soldiers coming to the villages and taking the 8-10 year old boys away. And researching the subject, there are also stories among the Christians who were the target that the mothers had to harm their own children, making them disabled and unsuitable for being soldiers only to manage to keep them from being taken away.
tarcyanm 8y ago
At the same time, this pales in comparison to what took place under the Spartan agoge system (at least to modern minds): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge

benj111 8y ago

Is it not that there are 2 sides to every argument? The final section is very anti Janissary, and paints the Sultan in a positive light, despite executing and exiling previously loyal subjects. What is their story of their 'disbanding'?

mda 8y ago
Getting killed under cannon fire in their own barracks, not a nice end for an order which served for so many years. The destructon of bektashi order was also a decision with long reaching consequences. Still, what most people believes that towards the end they were corrupt beyond any hope of rehabilitation or modernization. Earlier, Murad IV could restore the order after killing of Osman II by Jannisaries but it was mostly downhill after that. The abolishment of Jannisaries is known as "Vaka-i hayriye, Auspicious event".

paulnechifor 8y ago

It's not honest. It glosses over bad aspects. Take the blood tribute[1]. It mentions that some parents would allow their children to be taken, but it doesn't mention that some others considered it so bad that they would mutilate their children to avoid them being kidnapped. It doesn't mention that they were forcefully circumcised and converted to Islam. Muslim laws say that you're not allowed to have Muslim slaves, but the Ottomans were all to happy to ignore this. It says that the "recruitment" (to be kind) age varied anywhere between 8 and 20. That's completely misleading since the ideal age was 8 to 10. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme

nurettin 8y ago
It helps to distinguish between being critical of the article and being critical/morally judging the happenings within an empire between 15-17th centuries. Your criticism of the article is lie by omission, your moral judgement is irrelevant. Lie by omission requires an agenda. AFAICS this article doesn't defend the idea of taking young boys from their families and treating them as muslim kids and conscripting them when age comes. It just informs about the notion and historical effects.

hnuser1234 8y ago

Honest? The premise is of the article is "Okay, maybe the Janissaries were taken as slaves as children but here's why that's a good thing."