Why were the janissaries so effective despite being captured slave soldiers?
- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
-
How can slave soldiers be so effective?
-
fewer distractions
-
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.
-
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.
-
>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.-
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.-
>The local authorities simply collected them
That’s litterally kidnapping them-
>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!-
>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-
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
-
The fact that it was religiously and racially motivated or targeted rather than just random mass conscription. Also the collective village punishments
-
None. The “kidnap” meme is a 19/20th c fabrication for outrage porn purposes by nationalist balkan writers.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Except for maybe the numerous janissary revolts.
-
Janissary revolts were entirely about salaries and pensions, not some ideological opposition to slavery or Ottoman imperialism lol.
-
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.
-
>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? -
The Balkans were the most prosperous part of their shitty desert empire
-
>The Balkans were the most prosperous part of their shitty desert empire
#doubt. -
You’re delusional and I’m not even a Turk. The Anatolian heartland was far more secure and prosperous.
-
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
-
>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? -
A turk or a kraut
-
wrong
-
Are you so autistic that you can’t at least develop to prove I’m wrong
-
He can’t because he is lying
-
-
-
>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
-
-
>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.-
he’s a Balkanmelanoid, he was going to burn in hell no matter what he would have done
-
-
-
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-
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.
-
-
-
Turks ffs
-
-
-
>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.
-
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.
-
>Turks think it’s not evil because they had a good life and were also islamized and therefore spared the eternal fire below.
Based -
Sounds based to me.
-
-
-
-
>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.
-
>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.
-
-
Janissaries were not slaves. A slave would have begged to have the status of a Jannisary
-
>turks dont know what slavery means
-
slavery is when you bring in foreigners to rule you
-
-
Owned and equipped by the king, closest thing around to a professional army.
-
Hmmmmm…. smells awful Turkish in this thread… shouldn’t you be denying a genocide, Mehmet?
-
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.
-
mamluks are so cool
-
>>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-
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.
-
Well they are captured and forced into it. Just being they’re living the life doesn’t mean they weren’t slaves
-
They were never bought or sold. They were recruited and trained.
-
Mamluks were bought and sold.
-
Not jannisaries.
-
-
-
-
-
>just lob your balls off bro it’ll be EPIC
-
White Eunuchs were bought from slave markets. Not recruited by Devshirmeh. No Jannisary was ever made into a Eunuch. Not a single one.
-
>Not a single one.
That was a lot of dudes, are you sure not a single exception?-
Yes
-
-
-
Slave soldiers were not castrated. Hell slaves weren’t even, just the guys who served in the Harem.
-
-
also its not only Muslim phenomena
Germans also had unfree warriors with similar status
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis-
Interesting.
-
unfree in an feudal european context has nothing to do with slavery
-
they 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))
-
>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.-
so same like mameluks
thanks for proving my point-
interesting way of admitting you neither read nor understood my post
-
same for you, you brainlet
-
goddamn 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.-
gently caress of kraut
you will never be a KARA BOGA -
that would be the last thing i want to be
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*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-conscriptoroh good, i almost thought you kidnapped kids or something, welcome to the neighborhood
-
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.
-
They had their balls chopped of though
-
They didn’t.
-
Yes
-
No.
-
Then where did your balls go
-
-
-
-
Balls no. Foreskin yes.
-
-
what exactly is the difference between a "slave soldier" and a conscript or a draftee?
-
The draftees aren’t automatically being trained in picking cotton during basic training
-
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.
-
Conscripts get to go home if they’re still alive at the end
-
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.
-
so you just need to brainwash your slaves into thinking that this is the legitimate natural order and slavery isnt slavery anymore?
-
-
-
Slave soldiers tend to become elites while draftees go back to being peasants
-
-
I didn’t “kidnap” the children you honor, I simply collected them.
Welcome to the 16th c.
-
I’m not ridiculously angry at the practice and understand that Janissaries were men of high status. It’s just this ridiculously denial is hilarious.
-
It’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.
-
Slave 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.
-
Kul 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.
-
-
-
-
-
>Called jannies
>were slaves
>ACTUALLY GOT PAID
what did they mean by this?-
JANNIE ARE YOU OKAY
-
-
-
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.
-
196 Regiments/Batallions shortly after the reign of Suleiman I.
-
Foreign observers in the 16th c compared them to Classical Roman legionaries/Legions.
-
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.
-
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”…
-
They aren’t usually, the janissaries we’re effective cause they were white.
Also nice digits -
riddle me this, how did ottoman infantry fare againts the pike "phalanx" of the euros
-
You mean Slavic soldiers
-
Goddamn, yagatans (and shikomizue, and any other guardless blades) will never not look totally retarded to me.
-
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 -
>NOOOOOOOO YOU CANT TURN OUR BOYS INTO ELITE SOLDERS AND POLITICIANS. THATS LITERALLY GENOCIDE!
-
Yeah because they were running a charity
The state of argumentation.
-
-
little else to live for
-
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.-
It was kidnapping and mental programming. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional or is a Turk
-
You’re the Turk
-
-
-
They aren’t fully human and can be lead by anyone
-
How do modern Turks cope with the idea that they are all mutts of BVLLKAN males and their multiple submissive Turkish wives?
-
With some difficulty.
-
-
They’re only effective if the slaves are White.
-
>They’re only effective if the slaves are Slavic.
fixed for you
-
-
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.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.