3 ms·

> 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 actua

by 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.

freeflight 8y ago
But we are not just talking about "a pair of examples": "In response to foreign threats the Ottoman government chose to rapidly expand the size of the corps after the 1570s. Janissaries spent shorter periods of time in training as acemi oğlans, as the average age of recruitment increased from 13.5 in the 1490s to 16.6 in 1603. This reflected not only the Ottomans' greater need for manpower, but also the shorter training time necessary to produce skilled musketeers in comparison with archers. However, this change alone was not enough to produce the necessary manpower, and consequently the traditional limitation of recruitment to boys conscripted in the devşirme was lifted. Membership was opened up to free-born Muslims, both recruits hand-picked by the commander of the Janissaries, as well as the sons of current members of the Ottoman standing army. By the middle of the seventeenth century, the devşirme had largely been abandoned as a method of recruitment." "In 1449 they revolted for the first time, demanding higher wages, which they obtained. The stage was set for a decadent evolution, like that of the Streltsy of Tsar Peter's Russia or that of the Praetorian Guard which proved the greatest threat to Roman emperors, rather than an effective protection." [0] That's why comparing them to black African slaves completely misses how influential the Jannisaries ended up becoming inside the Ottoman empire. How often did you see black African slaves successfully revolt to increase their wages, among other privileges? How often did black African slaves manage to kill their "slaver leader" and survive to tell the story? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries
- acqq 8y ago
  > comparing them to black African slaves completely misses how influential the Jannisaries ended up becoming inside the Ottoman empire. So, boys 8-10 years old, forcefully taken away from their Christian families by the Muslims to be the Muslim soldiers eventually "get influential" to "demand higher wages" should somehow make the fact that they were taken away "as a tax" less bad? Or that the eventually "recruitment" was allowed "from the Muslims" too and that the structure changed in the army that counted hundreds of thousands? Of course it's not comparable to the black African slaves, but only because the black African slaves weren't taken away to be the soldiers. That's the major difference, and there's nothing less revolting there. The whole logic of having the soldiers made from the 8-10 year enslaved children was to have the the "pure soldiers" with no "real past" (they were "educated" so) and no "family to care about." Eventually those who organized that army managed to use them for some political influences, so the structure of that army was changed through the history to reduce the chances of them being used for the political influences. But these happened still from time to time, by the very position of being the top army force in the whole system. But the enslaved were enslaved, that didn't change that fact. That's the whole story there.
  - mda 8y ago
    Did you read the article? Most of your points are already refuted there.
    - watwut 8y ago
      None of it is refuted in article.
  - freeflight 8y ago
    > So, boys 8-10 years old, forcefully taken away from their Christian families by the Muslims to be the Muslim soldiers eventually "get influential" to "demand higher wages" should somehow make the fact that they were taken away "as a tax" less bad? You are still generalizing whole centuries like it's all the same, and nothing ever changed. Even tho I already presented you with plenty of evidence to the contrary, even the fact that the devşirme system for recruitment was largely abandoned as a recruitment method by the middle of the seventeenth century. Why you are doing that? I really don't know. At this point, it rather feels like you've just got some ax to grind with Islam, completely independent of the actual history of the Janissaries. As a Slav myself, I think their story has a tad bit more to learn from than just "Evil Muslims stealing Christian children". It also tells the story how these "children", many of which at that point have lived for generations in the Empire, then proceeded to "destroy the enemy from within". I'm also pretty sure the Ottoman Empire wasn't the only faction at that time that used "slave soldiers" or forced conscripts. At the end of the 18th, the British empire was the single biggest purchaser of slaves to be used as soldiers [0]. Yet I don't know about any units out of that with a similarly complex history, and influence, like the Janissaries, ended up having on the Ottoman Empire. If you know any, I'd be glad if you could share. [0] https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/slaves-red-coats-west-india-regiment https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/slaves-red-coats-west-india-re...

by acqq 8y ago

freeflight 8y ago

But we are not just talking about "a pair of examples": "In response to foreign threats the Ottoman government chose to rapidly expand the size of the corps after the 1570s. Janissaries spent shorter periods of time in training as acemi oğlans, as the average age of recruitment increased from 13.5 in the 1490s to 16.6 in 1603. This reflected not only the Ottomans' greater need for manpower, but also the shorter training time necessary to produce skilled musketeers in comparison with archers. However, this change alone was not enough to produce the necessary manpower, and consequently the traditional limitation of recruitment to boys conscripted in the devşirme was lifted. Membership was opened up to free-born Muslims, both recruits hand-picked by the commander of the Janissaries, as well as the sons of current members of the Ottoman standing army. By the middle of the seventeenth century, the devşirme had largely been abandoned as a method of recruitment." "In 1449 they revolted for the first time, demanding higher wages, which they obtained. The stage was set for a decadent evolution, like that of the Streltsy of Tsar Peter's Russia or that of the Praetorian Guard which proved the greatest threat to Roman emperors, rather than an effective protection." [0] That's why comparing them to black African slaves completely misses how influential the Jannisaries ended up becoming inside the Ottoman empire. How often did you see black African slaves successfully revolt to increase their wages, among other privileges? How often did black African slaves manage to kill their "slaver leader" and survive to tell the story? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries

acqq 8y ago
> comparing them to black African slaves completely misses how influential the Jannisaries ended up becoming inside the Ottoman empire. So, boys 8-10 years old, forcefully taken away from their Christian families by the Muslims to be the Muslim soldiers eventually "get influential" to "demand higher wages" should somehow make the fact that they were taken away "as a tax" less bad? Or that the eventually "recruitment" was allowed "from the Muslims" too and that the structure changed in the army that counted hundreds of thousands? Of course it's not comparable to the black African slaves, but only because the black African slaves weren't taken away to be the soldiers. That's the major difference, and there's nothing less revolting there. The whole logic of having the soldiers made from the 8-10 year enslaved children was to have the the "pure soldiers" with no "real past" (they were "educated" so) and no "family to care about." Eventually those who organized that army managed to use them for some political influences, so the structure of that army was changed through the history to reduce the chances of them being used for the political influences. But these happened still from time to time, by the very position of being the top army force in the whole system. But the enslaved were enslaved, that didn't change that fact. That's the whole story there.
- mda 8y ago
  Did you read the article? Most of your points are already refuted there.
  - watwut 8y ago
    None of it is refuted in article.
- freeflight 8y ago
  > So, boys 8-10 years old, forcefully taken away from their Christian families by the Muslims to be the Muslim soldiers eventually "get influential" to "demand higher wages" should somehow make the fact that they were taken away "as a tax" less bad? You are still generalizing whole centuries like it's all the same, and nothing ever changed. Even tho I already presented you with plenty of evidence to the contrary, even the fact that the devşirme system for recruitment was largely abandoned as a recruitment method by the middle of the seventeenth century. Why you are doing that? I really don't know. At this point, it rather feels like you've just got some ax to grind with Islam, completely independent of the actual history of the Janissaries. As a Slav myself, I think their story has a tad bit more to learn from than just "Evil Muslims stealing Christian children". It also tells the story how these "children", many of which at that point have lived for generations in the Empire, then proceeded to "destroy the enemy from within". I'm also pretty sure the Ottoman Empire wasn't the only faction at that time that used "slave soldiers" or forced conscripts. At the end of the 18th, the British empire was the single biggest purchaser of slaves to be used as soldiers [0]. Yet I don't know about any units out of that with a similarly complex history, and influence, like the Janissaries, ended up having on the Ottoman Empire. If you know any, I'd be glad if you could share. [0] https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/slaves-red-coats-west-india-regiment https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/slaves-red-coats-west-india-re...