Why were the janissaries so effective despite being captured slave soldiers?
Home › Forums › History › Why were the janissaries so effective despite being captured slave soldiers?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 1:23 am #58746
-
January 5, 2021 at 1:25 am #58747
Anonymous
Guestfewer distractions
-
January 5, 2021 at 1:31 am #58749
Anonymous
GuestBecause they were reared from birth to be effective warriors, and because of that were given the very best equipment from the time.
I wonder how Turkish Nationalists cope with their most effective units from history being captured children from the balkans.
-
January 5, 2021 at 2:10 am #58750
Anonymous
GuestJanissaries were not slave soldiers.
They were forcefully conscripted, but a janissary was not a slave.They were not "captured", they were simply selected and forced into training. The reason why they chose christians from the balkans, caucasus, greece and other parts of the empire instead of turks or muslims was that they couldn’t go around stealing kids from actual muslims, even though sometimes impoverished muslims would try to get their children into the troop regardless.
And they weren’t christian soldiers either, the Jannisaries were thoroughly brainwashed and raised as fanatic muslims.
-
January 5, 2021 at 2:25 am #58751
Anonymous
Guest>They were not "captured", they were simply selected and forced into training
So captured. You yourself literally said that they couldn’t kidnap muslims wihich means they were kidnapping the jannisaries. Also, nowher ein that post did they say they were christians. And clearly they weren’t always brainwashed as there were multiple instances where they left and become christians.-
January 5, 2021 at 2:28 am #58752
Anonymous
GuestThey were not captured or kidnapped.
The local authorities simply collected them. The regions were under Ottoman control and they could take whoever they wanted.
But they couldn’t take muslim children since they had rights the christians didn’t.-
January 5, 2021 at 2:35 am #58754
Anonymous
Guest>The local authorities simply collected them
That’s litterally kidnapping them-
January 5, 2021 at 3:17 am #58761
Anonymous
Guest>hey if you let your kid enroll in our army, he’ll be set for life
>yes yes gently caress yes! take him
>ok we’ll be around to collect him in fall
>noooooooooooooooooooo that’s capturing!-
January 5, 2021 at 3:31 am #58766
Anonymous
Guest>hey if you let your kid enroll in our army, he’ll be set for life
>what? That may be nice for him, but no, we want to raise our son and keep him with us!
>ok we’ll be around to collect him in fall
>Dude they didn’t kidnap them, the parents gave them away-
January 5, 2021 at 4:04 am #58767
Anonymous
GuestNot that guy but whats the difference between this and mandatory conscription? Conscription isnt considered kidnapping unless the Turks had no laws for such things and drafted them out of random
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:16 am #58772
Anonymous
GuestThe fact that it was religiously and racially motivated or targeted rather than just random mass conscription. Also the collective village punishments
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:17 am #58773
Anonymous
GuestNone. The “kidnap” meme is a 19/20th c fabrication for outrage porn purposes by nationalist balkan writers.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:45 am #58785
Anonymous
GuestFor janissaries , they take baby Christian from their family and give them ottoman and Muslim education and force them to serve the sultan until death. Wich is different than for conscripted muslim who at least did spent their childhood with their family and weren’t brainwashed to give their life for their oppressor. Also their time of service was limited wich mean they could go back home.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:47 am #58786
Anonymous
GuestNot true. They took them at ages 9-13 and sometimes older too. They lived with Turkish families for a few years and then went to special schools.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:48 am #58787
Anonymous
GuestThere is a lot of condemnation of the practice from the foreign Christian enemies of the Ottomans but surprisingly none from the actual Christian Ottoman populations or from the Jannisaries themselves.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:51 am #58793
Anonymous
GuestExcept for maybe the numerous janissary revolts.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:54 am #58796
Anonymous
GuestJanissary revolts were entirely about salaries and pensions, not some ideological opposition to slavery or Ottoman imperialism lol.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:55 am #58797
Anonymous
GuestAlways revolted because either they were bored of not campaigning or they felt the military leadership was wrong or for their customary payments. They would earn money in campaigns so mostly they wanted more of those. They would invest these monies in various ventures also.
-
January 5, 2021 at 6:47 am #58811
Anonymous
Guest>Jannisaries
Who in their right mind would complain about being made an elite soldier when the alternative was living a shitty life in the Balkans? -
January 5, 2021 at 7:08 am #58814
Anonymous
GuestThe Balkans were the most prosperous part of their shitty desert empire
-
January 5, 2021 at 7:10 am #58816
Anonymous
Guest>The Balkans were the most prosperous part of their shitty desert empire
#doubt. -
January 5, 2021 at 12:50 pm #58825
Anonymous
GuestYou’re delusional and I’m not even a Turk. The Anatolian heartland was far more secure and prosperous.
-
January 5, 2021 at 7:33 am #58819
Anonymous
GuestStop lying Turkophile faggot. There were various janissary revolts and local outcries about the παιδομάζωμα. Imagine saying that slavery wasnt bad because uncle Toms existed
-
January 5, 2021 at 7:38 am #58820
Anonymous
Guest>surprisingly none from the actual Christian Ottoman populations
The entire Bulgarian folklore of that time is about the atrocities committed by the Turks (including the devshirme) and about mythical heroes slaying Turks. I’m sure it’s the same in Serbia and elsewhere. Who the gently caress taught you history? -
January 5, 2021 at 7:41 am #58821
Anonymous
GuestA turk or a kraut
-
January 5, 2021 at 10:31 pm #58844
Anonymous
Guestwrong
-
January 6, 2021 at 8:10 am #58849
Anonymous
GuestAre you so autistic that you can’t at least develop to prove I’m wrong
-
January 6, 2021 at 8:24 am #58850
Anonymous
GuestHe can’t because he is lying
-
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:21 am #58774
Anonymous
Guest>wow Charles V takes half the village to go die in some rando meaningless war in Germany so cool!
>nooo Turks made a small peasant village produce grand viziers who married the daughters of the sultan nooo that’s kidnapping
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:07 am #58768
Anonymous
Guest>hey if you let your kid enroll in our army, he’ll be set for life
And he’ll burn in Hell forever, don’t forget that part.-
January 5, 2021 at 4:08 am #58769
Anonymous
Guesthe’s a Balkanmelanoid, he was going to burn in hell no matter what he would have done
-
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 1:12 pm #58828
Anonymous
GuestIs not that they went around and kidnapped children in the dark, they were a blood tax on conquered Balkan region.
Ottomans had also some kind of tests for strength and intelligence and the smartest, strongest and tallest were chosen, because most of theme were killed in the never-ending wars and never returned back it must have drained from Balkans their best potential-
January 6, 2021 at 6:50 pm #58861
Anonymous
GuestThe ottomans only took children from families that had several sons so that the family line wouldn’t end if the son they took died in battle.
-
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 12:15 pm #58823
Anonymous
GuestTurks ffs
-
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 2:41 am #58755
Anonymous
Guest>The local authorities simply collected them
That’s litterally kidnapping themI can’t wait to see how the rest of this argument plays out, this has potential to be an all-timer.
-
January 5, 2021 at 2:46 am #58759
Anonymous
GuestTurks think it’s not evil because they had a good life and were also islamized and therefore spared the eternal fire below. And their family were just stupid christians whose feelings don’t matter anyway.
-
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 3:24 am #58765
Anonymous
Guest>I wonder how Turkish Nationalists cope with their most effective units from history being captured children from the balkans.
Easy, the Janissaries weren’t the elite of the Ottoman Army. The Qapikulu Spahi was.
The Janissaries basically exist to provide a professional standing *infantry* for the Ottomans to enable them to fight in Europe, largely because the Infantry was the weakest link of the traditional Ottoman/any Turkic army.
-
January 5, 2021 at 1:22 pm #58829
Anonymous
Guest>I wonder how Turkish Nationalists cope with their most effective units from history being captured children from the balkans.
They don’t, they are proud of it.
Turks are notoriously proud of being nonces that kidnapped and enslaved young balkan boys to turn them into sex slaves or soldiers.Also, overrunning an outnumbered opponent is considered glorious and honourable in Turkish culture, just look at the amount of movies they shit out about the conquest of Constantinople, they romanticize themselves in the most bizarre manner I’ve ever seen.
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 2:29 am #58753
Anonymous
GuestJanissaries were not slaves. A slave would have begged to have the status of a Jannisary
-
January 5, 2021 at 2:43 am #58756
-
January 5, 2021 at 2:43 am #58757
Anonymous
Guestslavery is when you bring in foreigners to rule you
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 2:45 am #58758
Anonymous
GuestOwned and equipped by the king, closest thing around to a professional army.
-
January 5, 2021 at 2:47 am #58760
-
January 5, 2021 at 3:20 am #58763
Anonymous
GuestBecause you misunderstand what a "slave soldier" is in the Muslim context.
The Islamic military tradition- born out of the great Arab Conquests of the 500s-700s AD- had a tough time understanding what a professional standing army was. To the Islamic warrior steeped in Arab tribal warrior traditions, a Warrior was the freest person there was. A warrior can choose who he can fight for, who he wants to fight, when he wants to fightor not fight. During the era of the great conquests, Muslim warriors freely enteredleft the service of an Emir based on how successful he was, how generous he was with the loot, and if his area of campaign was profitable.
By the time of the Caliphates however, this tribalmelanoid system was increasingly detrimental for an Empire that was looking to settle down and defend its borders. Warriors simply leaving the army in eras of prolonged peace, warriors leaving emirs in favor of other more generous emirs meant the Caliphates had a nebulous military.
In short, the Emirs needed a standing army that would permanently be on duty 24/7 on the beck and call of their commanders. In the Muslim logic, since slaves belonged to their masters alone and were his to command and dispose of, then the best way to furnish a standing army was to have "enslaved" soldiers. Thus began the "Mamluk" phenomena, where Muslims captured/bought/or (more often than not) acquired willing "slaves" who were personally armed/equipped by their masters and answerable only to their master and theoretically be in his service in perpetuity. Unlike regular slaves, however, the Mamluk enjoyed a gently caresston of privileges, such as living in his masters palace, his basic needs cared for by his masters’ subjectsslaves, having a fixed stipend for his own use, and most importantly during the post-caliphates era, having grant of his masters’ lands and becoming practially a feudal warrior elite.
-
January 5, 2021 at 3:23 am #58764
Anonymous
Guestmamluks are so cool
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:37 am #58780
Anonymous
Guest>>Unlike regular slaves, however, the Mamluk enjoyed a gently caresston of privileges, such as living in his masters palace, his basic needs cared for by his masters’ subjectsslaves, having a fixed stipend for his own use, and most importantly during the post-caliphates era, having grant of his masters’ lands and becoming practially a feudal warrior elite.
>"slaves" that get paid a salary, get to retire with a pension, and are free to quit whenever they want
LMFAO is this what the Muslims considered "slavery" BAKA-
January 5, 2021 at 4:40 am #58781
Anonymous
GuestSlavery anywhere is a complex issue whose definitions vary from context to context. Not every slave in history was chattel slavery employed for mass manual labor.
And in the Islamic World, slavery has layers of social status, ranging from underclasses like chattel slaves, and societal elites such as military slaves.
-
January 5, 2021 at 6:45 am #58809
Anonymous
GuestWell they are captured and forced into it. Just being they’re living the life doesn’t mean they weren’t slaves
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 6:39 am #58806
Anonymous
Guest>just lob your balls off bro it’ll be EPIC
-
January 5, 2021 at 6:42 am #58807
Anonymous
GuestWhite Eunuchs were bought from slave markets. Not recruited by Devshirmeh. No Jannisary was ever made into a Eunuch. Not a single one.
-
January 5, 2021 at 7:09 am #58815
Anonymous
GuestSlave soldiers were not castrated. Hell slaves weren’t even, just the guys who served in the Harem.
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 1:46 pm #58832
Anonymous
Guestalso its not only Muslim phenomena
Germans also had unfree warriors with similar status
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis-
January 5, 2021 at 5:16 pm #58833
Anonymous
GuestInteresting.
-
January 5, 2021 at 5:36 pm #58835
Anonymous
Guestunfree in an feudal european context has nothing to do with slavery
-
January 5, 2021 at 5:42 pm #58836
Anonymous
Guestthey functioned in similar way to most ‘slave’ soldiers in the feudal Muslim world
>>The ministeriales were not legally free people, but held social rank. Legally, their liege lord determined whom they could or could not marry, and they were not able to transfer their lords’ properties to heirs or spouses.the eastern principalities(especially pagan Grand Duchy(the Lithuanian one) have this custom that all land and people belong to the grand prince and so the grand prince is free to command and give them away(reason for so many divisions between offspring but also situations were warriors were give as a gift(to foreign ruler for example))
-
January 5, 2021 at 6:04 pm #58837
Anonymous
Guest>they functioned in similar way to most ‘slave’ soldiers in the feudal Muslim world
yet they werent kidnapped nor forced in this role>they were not able to transfer their lords’ properties to heirs or spouses.
this is more a lack of privilegue than a lack of rights: in the carolingian period, most titles (and the lands that were tied to them) were only granted for a vassals lifetime and had to be re-granted to his children at the kings disposal. the heritage of such titles was a later development that wasnt fully concluded at the times ministeriales became a thing.
besides, they could posses allods which were their own lands and could be passed down to their children.-
January 5, 2021 at 7:05 pm #58838
Anonymous
Guestso same like mameluks
thanks for proving my point-
January 5, 2021 at 7:23 pm #58839
Anonymous
Guestinteresting way of admitting you neither read nor understood my post
-
January 5, 2021 at 7:33 pm #58840
Anonymous
Guestsame for you, you brainlet
-
January 5, 2021 at 7:56 pm #58842
Anonymous
Guestgoddamn you are a brainlet
>yet they werent kidnapped nor forced in this role
>Mamluks were purchased while still young males
notice the word PURCHASED>>they were not able to transfer their lords’ properties to heirs or spouses.
not at all comparable to the situation of mamluks, as stated in my post>they were not able to transfer their lords’ properties to heirs or spouses.
this is more a lack of privilegue than a lack of rights: in the carolingian period, most titles (and the lands that were tied to them) were only granted for a vassals lifetime and had to be re-granted to his children at the kings disposal. the heritage of such titles was a later development that wasnt fully concluded at the times ministeriales became a thing.
besides, they could posses allods which were their own lands and could be passed down to their children.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:10 am #58770
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:15 am #58771
Anonymous
GuestNice digits. The answer probably is: they are extremely focused and well trained. Their lives have one purpose and they get extremely good at it.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:25 am #58775
Anonymous
GuestThey had their balls chopped of though
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:27 am #58777
Anonymous
Guestwhat exactly is the difference between a "slave soldier" and a conscript or a draftee?
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:32 am #58778
Anonymous
GuestThe draftees aren’t automatically being trained in picking cotton during basic training
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:33 am #58779
Anonymous
GuestSee
Because you misunderstand what a "slave soldier" is in the Muslim context.
The Islamic military tradition- born out of the great Arab Conquests of the 500s-700s AD- had a tough time understanding what a professional standing army was. To the Islamic warrior steeped in Arab tribal warrior traditions, a Warrior was the freest person there was. A warrior can choose who he can fight for, who he wants to fight, when he wants to fightor not fight. During the era of the great conquests, Muslim warriors freely enteredleft the service of an Emir based on how successful he was, how generous he was with the loot, and if his area of campaign was profitable.
By the time of the Caliphates however, this tribalmelanoid system was increasingly detrimental for an Empire that was looking to settle down and defend its borders. Warriors simply leaving the army in eras of prolonged peace, warriors leaving emirs in favor of other more generous emirs meant the Caliphates had a nebulous military.
In short, the Emirs needed a standing army that would permanently be on duty 24/7 on the beck and call of their commanders. In the Muslim logic, since slaves belonged to their masters alone and were his to command and dispose of, then the best way to furnish a standing army was to have "enslaved" soldiers. Thus began the "Mamluk" phenomena, where Muslims captured/bought/or (more often than not) acquired willing "slaves" who were personally armed/equipped by their masters and answerable only to their master and theoretically be in his service in perpetuity. Unlike regular slaves, however, the Mamluk enjoyed a gently caresston of privileges, such as living in his masters palace, his basic needs cared for by his masters’ subjectsslaves, having a fixed stipend for his own use, and most importantly during the post-caliphates era, having grant of his masters’ lands and becoming practially a feudal warrior elite.
-
January 5, 2021 at 5:12 am #58802
Anonymous
GuestConscripts get to go home if they’re still alive at the end
-
January 5, 2021 at 5:13 am #58803
Anonymous
GuestIt’s a different worldview. These people considered themselves to be members of a universal world empire. If you consider that empire illegitimate then you probably considered it illegal and bad but for those who considered it legitimate (and they all did), it was their duty and job.
-
January 5, 2021 at 5:32 pm #58834
Anonymous
Guestso you just need to brainwash your slaves into thinking that this is the legitimate natural order and slavery isnt slavery anymore?
-
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 6:44 am #58808
Anonymous
GuestSlave soldiers tend to become elites while draftees go back to being peasants
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:42 am #58782
Anonymous
GuestI didn’t “kidnap” the children you honor, I simply collected them.
Welcome to the 16th c.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:43 am #58783
Anonymous
GuestI’m not ridiculously angry at the practice and understand that Janissaries were men of high status. It’s just this ridiculously denial is hilarious.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:45 am #58784
Anonymous
GuestIt’s not denial. It’s wrong to call it kidnapping. At the very least it’s anachronistic.
Many people conflate all incidences of slavery with Atlantic world slavery but in the Ottoman case it had many peculiarities that more closely resemble specific citizenry/subject statuses.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:50 am #58790
Anonymous
GuestSlave was a term used in the devshirme system. They weren’t allowed to resign from the army and couldn’t marry until they were discharged when they got too old. Sure it was probably better than being a poor balkan peasant but these aren’t freemen or citizen soldiers.
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:53 am #58795
Anonymous
GuestKul is a term used for most subjects of the sultan. It is also the term used for all individuals with respect to God in Islamic writings/ottoman culture. Ottoman government was centralized at least nominally so there was no European feudal structure with intermediary owed allegiances. Also the “army” was a giant institution that involved running farms/shops so people who were in the army did those things too. They would marry after a certain age.
-
-
-
-
-
January 5, 2021 at 4:51 am #58792
Anonymous
Guest>Called jannies
>were slaves
>ACTUALLY GOT PAID
what did they mean by this? -
January 5, 2021 at 5:00 am #58798
Anonymous
GuestIn practice, Jannisaries were assigned to numbered imperial palace and provincial regiments who enjoyed broad autonomy in their specific duties. The police jobs of major cities across the empire was under their purview, as was the counter intelligence work with respect to Venetian/Safavid/Habsburg or other imperial spies. In peacetime they kept order in courts and protected harbors. They managed various tax estates that were owned by the sultan directly on his behalf, collecting monies. They moved around with their regiments. Some of these remained in particular cities for extended periods.
-
January 5, 2021 at 5:01 am #58799
Anonymous
Guest196 Regiments/Batallions shortly after the reign of Suleiman I.
-
January 5, 2021 at 5:03 am #58800
Anonymous
GuestForeign observers in the 16th c compared them to Classical Roman legionaries/Legions.
-
January 5, 2021 at 5:09 am #58801
Anonymous
GuestIn one incident recorded in Venetian records and in the Ottoman provincial reports to Istanbul, a certain Jannisary officer agha of Crete in Chania managed to unravel a Venetian spy operation in the city by working a double agent who eventually led to the respective Venetians and their assets being arrested. In the records it is mentioned that the Jannisary belongs to the 76th Regiment and his son is in another regiment in Hungary. There was an attempt to start a rebellion in the hinterlands using a few landing parties that gets foiled.
-
January 5, 2021 at 5:25 am #58805
Anonymous
GuestThings foreign observers consistently say about Jannisaries:
— very quiet
— very disciplined
— highly ordered, organized (camps put up and down quickly, marching efficiently)
— highly capable
— well read, erudite, cultured, civilized in demeanor.
— fit and trained in all manner of fighting
— morally incorruptible (specifically no brawling, gambling, carousing, dutiful in practice of religion, hygienic)There was a lot of fascination with them because of their former status as Christians.
Jesuits modeled on them…writers refer to the Jesuit order as “Catholic Jannisaries”…
-
January 5, 2021 at 11:14 am #58822
Anonymous
GuestThey aren’t usually, the janissaries we’re effective cause they were white.
Also nice digits -
January 5, 2021 at 12:34 pm #58824
Anonymous
Guestriddle me this, how did ottoman infantry fare againts the pike "phalanx" of the euros
-
January 5, 2021 at 1:05 pm #58827
Anonymous
GuestYou mean Slavic soldiers
-
January 5, 2021 at 1:23 pm #58830
Anonymous
GuestGoddamn, yagatans (and shikomizue, and any other guardless blades) will never not look totally retarded to me.
-
January 5, 2021 at 7:41 pm #58841
Anonymous
GuestThe best soldiers historically werent slaves, but elected to undergo intense training from a young age for a singular purpose of warfare. I.e. spartan warriors.
The best armies, however rarely were composed of this type of solider. But instead of highly trained adults who joined later in life and had better strategy and equipment like the u.s. army today or like the roman army. The mongols didnt have the best soldiers or the best equipment but followed strategies that a full cavalry army would excel at -
January 5, 2021 at 10:34 pm #58845
Anonymous
Guest-
January 6, 2021 at 4:08 am #58847
Anonymous
GuestYeah because they were running a charity
The state of argumentation.
-
-
January 6, 2021 at 2:39 am #58846
Anonymous
Guestlittle else to live for
-
January 6, 2021 at 5:11 am #58848
Anonymous
GuestIt’s semantics, but the devsirme was not kidnapping.
There were a lot of rules to it, and a lot of the population was exempt (single children, orphans, artisans, garden gnomes, muslims, gipsies), the kids even had to have a legal guardian who could sign the paperwork, and candidates were chosen from the local baptism register in cooperation with the orthodox priest.
In essence it was a form of taxation on parts of the population that had nothing to offer but manpower. -
January 6, 2021 at 9:23 am #58853
Anonymous
GuestThey aren’t fully human and can be lead by anyone
-
January 6, 2021 at 9:40 am #58854
Anonymous
GuestHow do modern Turks cope with the idea that they are all mutts of BVLLKAN males and their multiple submissive Turkish wives?
-
January 6, 2021 at 6:28 pm #58858
-
-
January 6, 2021 at 9:52 am #58855
Anonymous
GuestThey’re only effective if the slaves are White.
-
January 6, 2021 at 3:46 pm #58857
Anonymous
Guest>They’re only effective if the slaves are Slavic.
fixed for you
-
-
January 6, 2021 at 6:33 pm #58859
Anonymous
GuestSlave soldiers in general are not effective. In this case, you had an ethnic minority in a to them hostile environment that received privileges and depended on the good-will of the ruler for their own survival, so they had all reason to be loyal. Emperors of the HRE recruited Muslims from Southern Italy for the same reason.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.