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.
Viewing 30 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #58746
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How can slave soldiers be so effective?

    • #58747
      Anonymous
      Guest

      fewer distractions

    • #58749
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because 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.

      • #58750
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Janissaries 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.

        • #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.

          • #58752
            Anonymous
            Guest

            They 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.

            • #58754
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >The local authorities simply collected them
              That’s litterally kidnapping them

              • #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!

                • #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

                  • #58767
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Not 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

                    • #58772
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      The fact that it was religiously and racially motivated or targeted rather than just random mass conscription. Also the collective village punishments

                    • #58773
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      None. The “kidnap” meme is a 19/20th c fabrication for outrage porn purposes by nationalist balkan writers.

                    • #58785
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      For 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.

                      • #58786
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Not 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.

                      • #58787
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        There 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.

                      • #58793
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Except for maybe the numerous janissary revolts.

                      • #58796
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Janissary revolts were entirely about salaries and pensions, not some ideological opposition to slavery or Ottoman imperialism lol.

                      • #58797
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Always 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.

                      • #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?

                      • #58814
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The Balkans were the most prosperous part of their shitty desert empire

                      • #58816
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >The Balkans were the most prosperous part of their shitty desert empire
                        #doubt.

                      • #58825
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You’re delusional and I’m not even a Turk. The Anatolian heartland was far more secure and prosperous.

                      • #58819
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Stop lying Turkophile faggot. There were various janissary revolts and local outcries about the παιδομάζωμα. Imagine saying that slavery wasnt bad because uncle Toms existed

                      • #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?

                      • #58821
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        A turk or a kraut

                      • #58844
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        wrong

                      • #58849
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Are you so autistic that you can’t at least develop to prove I’m wrong

                      • #58850
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        He can’t because he is lying

                  • #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

                • #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.

                  • #58769
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    he’s a Balkanmelanoid, he was going to burn in hell no matter what he would have done

              • #58828
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Is 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

                • #58861
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  The 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.

            • #58823
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Turks ffs

        • #58755
          Anonymous
          Guest
          • #58759
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Turks 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.

            • #58762
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Turks think it’s not evil because they had a good life and were also islamized and therefore spared the eternal fire below.
              Based

            • #58860
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Sounds based to me.

      • #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.

      • #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.

    • #58753
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Janissaries were not slaves. A slave would have begged to have the status of a Jannisary

    • #58756
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >turks dont know what slavery means

      • #58757
        Anonymous
        Guest

        slavery is when you bring in foreigners to rule you

    • #58758
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Owned and equipped by the king, closest thing around to a professional army.

    • #58760
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Hmmmmm…. smells awful Turkish in this thread… shouldn’t you be denying a genocide, Mehmet?

    • #58763
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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.

      • #58764
        Anonymous
        Guest

        mamluks are so cool

      • #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

        • #58781
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Slavery 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.

        • #58809
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Well they are captured and forced into it. Just being they’re living the life doesn’t mean they weren’t slaves

          • #58810
            Anonymous
            Guest

            They were never bought or sold. They were recruited and trained.

            • #58812
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Mamluks were bought and sold.

              • #58813
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Not jannisaries.

      • #58806
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >just lob your balls off bro it’ll be EPIC

        • #58807
          Anonymous
          Guest

          White Eunuchs were bought from slave markets. Not recruited by Devshirmeh. No Jannisary was ever made into a Eunuch. Not a single one.

          • #58817
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Not a single one.
            That was a lot of dudes, are you sure not a single exception?

            • #58818
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Yes

        • #58815
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Slave soldiers were not castrated. Hell slaves weren’t even, just the guys who served in the Harem.

      • #58832
        Anonymous
        Guest

        also its not only Muslim phenomena
        Germans also had unfree warriors with similar status
        >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis

    • #58770
      Anonymous
      Guest

      *dong ding*
      excuse me i am new in this neighborhood and by law i am forced to inform you that i am a convicted child-conscriptor

      oh good, i almost thought you kidnapped kids or something, welcome to the neighborhood

    • #58771
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Nice digits. The answer probably is: they are extremely focused and well trained. Their lives have one purpose and they get extremely good at it.

    • #58775
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They had their balls chopped of though

      • #58776
        Anonymous
        Guest

        They didn’t.

        • #58788
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Yes

          • #58789
            Anonymous
            Guest

            No.

            • #58791
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Then where did your balls go

      • #58826
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Balls no. Foreskin yes.

    • #58777
      Anonymous
      Guest

      what exactly is the difference between a "slave soldier" and a conscript or a draftee?

      • #58778
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The draftees aren’t automatically being trained in picking cotton during basic training

      • #58779
        Anonymous
        Guest

        See

        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.

      • #58802
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Conscripts get to go home if they’re still alive at the end

        • #58803
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It’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.

          • #58834
            Anonymous
            Guest

            so you just need to brainwash your slaves into thinking that this is the legitimate natural order and slavery isnt slavery anymore?

      • #58808
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Slave soldiers tend to become elites while draftees go back to being peasants

    • #58782
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I didn’t “kidnap” the children you honor, I simply collected them.

      Welcome to the 16th c.

    • #58792
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Called jannies
      >were slaves
      >ACTUALLY GOT PAID
      what did they mean by this?

    • #58798
      Anonymous
      Guest

      In 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.

    • #58799
      Anonymous
      Guest

      196 Regiments/Batallions shortly after the reign of Suleiman I.

    • #58800
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Foreign observers in the 16th c compared them to Classical Roman legionaries/Legions.

    • #58801
      Anonymous
      Guest

      In 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.

    • #58805
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Things 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”…

    • #58822
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They aren’t usually, the janissaries we’re effective cause they were white.
      Also nice digits

    • #58824
      Anonymous
      Guest

      riddle me this, how did ottoman infantry fare againts the pike "phalanx" of the euros

    • #58827
      Anonymous
      Guest

      You mean Slavic soldiers

    • #58830
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Goddamn, yagatans (and shikomizue, and any other guardless blades) will never not look totally retarded to me.

    • #58841
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The 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

    • #58845
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >NOOOOOOOO YOU CANT TURN OUR BOYS INTO ELITE SOLDERS AND POLITICIANS. THATS LITERALLY GENOCIDE!

      • #58847
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Yeah because they were running a charity
        The state of argumentation.

    • #58846
      Anonymous
      Guest

      little else to live for

    • #58848
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’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.

      • #58851
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It was kidnapping and mental programming. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional or is a Turk

        • #58852
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You’re the Turk

    • #58853
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They aren’t fully human and can be lead by anyone

    • #58854
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How do modern Turks cope with the idea that they are all mutts of BVLLKAN males and their multiple submissive Turkish wives?

      • #58858
        Anonymous
        Guest

        With some difficulty.

    • #58855
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They’re only effective if the slaves are White.

      • #58857
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >They’re only effective if the slaves are Slavic.
        fixed for you

    • #58859
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Slave 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.

Viewing 30 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.