AHC Restore the Janissaries

Mahmud II wanted to get rid of the legacy of Janissaries. And the people hated them as well. I don't give it much chance.

Well yes the people hated them, but the conservative, tampering Janissaries are gone, and I think the Young Turks have a good chance to make this happen because even though these new Janissaries are the top of their class, there is the rest of the military that can counter the Janissaries. And they would choose the most loyal to the Ottoman Empire, and the fittest from those groups. They have history to learn from to fix any mistakes from a new reinstatement of the Jannisarries.
 
Well yes the people hated them, but the conservative, tampering Janissaries are gone, and I think the Young Turks have a good chance to make this happen because even though these new Janissaries are the top of their class, there is the rest of the military that can counter the Janissaries. And they would choose the most loyal to the Ottoman Empire, and the fittest from those groups. They have history to learn from to fix any mistakes from a new reinstatement of the Jannisarries.

The Young Turks were Liberal. Calling a supporters group Janissaries goes against their ideological beliefs.

Imagine it is the 1920s. The Ottoman Empire managed to keep the 1876 borders of the Balkans. In the 1920s as ideological groups start growing like Pan-Turkist, Communist, Pan-Islamic... one of them, most likely the latter, might create a supporters group called Janissaries. Mostly made up by Muslims from the Balkans and Caucasus (Bosnians, Albanians, Georgians, Circassians). Like what blackshirst were for Mussolini.
 
Mahmud II wanted to get rid of the legacy of Janissaries. And the people hated them as well. I don't give it much chance.

Not to mention that by the time they were abolished, they were more of a burden than a bonus. On one hand, they were excessively rebellion prone and their location in a capital provided them with the good opportunity to depose the sultans they did not like, kill the ministers they don't like and resist any reform they were considering as endangering their position. OTOH, by the mid-XVIII their value as a military force became quite low: they would not adopt to a new tactics, panicked easily and their main military virtue, furious attacks, lost most of its value against the increasing firepower of their enemies and, as the XVIII century wars with Russia demonstrated, enemy's eagerness to use the bayonet charges.
 
Is there a way for them to be replaced as a major military force but survive as a ceremonial ish unit?

Maybe if Selim III survives the reactionary coup of 1807. He wasn't as hostile as Mahmud II was. But their numbers, about 135,000 men is a lot. Take around 800-2,000 of them and you're good to go.
 
Not to mention that by the time they were abolished, they were more of a burden than a bonus. On one hand, they were excessively rebellion prone and their location in a capital provided them with the good opportunity to depose the sultans they did not like, kill the ministers they don't like and resist any reform they were considering as endangering their position. OTOH, by the mid-XVIII their value as a military force became quite low: they would not adopt to a new tactics, panicked easily and their main military virtue, furious attacks, lost most of its value against the increasing firepower of their enemies and, as the XVIII century wars with Russia demonstrated, enemy's eagerness to use the bayonet charges.

If Murad III had been a more capable Sultan he wouldn't have filled the Corps with older less disciplined men. Especially with the benefits you had as Janissaries. The whole corps lost its superiority in his reign.

But up until 1739 they weren't half tha bad in performance considering the results of the war. The Corps growing with opportunists made the latter half of the 18th century worse. Many of the 100,000 Janissaries were in the Corps to be extempted of taxes as merchants and/or having additional salaries. The one who wanted to curb their power got deposed (Osman II, Mustafa II, Selim III).
 
But up until 1739 they weren't half tha bad in performance considering the results of the war.

I assume that you are talking about the Austrian-Ottoman War of 1737-39 in which Austrians had been beaten and not Russian-Ottoman War of 1735-39. As was commented later in the XVIII century (2nd Russian-Ottoman War during the reign of Catherine II), in their wars against the Ottomans the Austrians had an attitude problem. Their officers and commanders had been well-educated and their approach to the Ottomans was the same as to the "European" opponents: at the sight of an enemy they started maneuvering (and as a result had been routinely defeated even by a smaller Ottoman force). OTOH, the Russian commanders tended to be much less educated but (especially after the war of 1737 - 39) they "knew" that the Ottomans are going to be defeated. As a result, the only thing they were doing at the sight of an enemy was to arrange their troops into the square formations and attack, no matter how bad were the numeric odds, usually successfully. In other words, it is not always beneficially to know too much. ;)


The Corps growing with opportunists made the latter half of the 18th century worse. Many of the 100,000 Janissaries were in the Corps to be extempted of taxes as merchants and/or having additional salaries. The one who wanted to curb their power got deposed (Osman II, Mustafa II, Selim III).

Was the corps really that big? Judging by Wiki, it strength by 1701 was around 43,000 and prior to this never exceeded 68,000.
 
I assume that you are talking about the Austrian-Ottoman War of 1737-39 in which Austrians had been beaten and not Russian-Ottoman War of 1735-39. As was commented later in the XVIII century (2nd Russian-Ottoman War during the reign of Catherine II), in their wars against the Ottomans the Austrians had an attitude problem. Their officers and commanders had been well-educated and their approach to the Ottomans was the same as to the "European" opponents: at the sight of an enemy they started maneuvering (and as a result had been routinely defeated even by a smaller Ottoman force). OTOH, the Russian commanders tended to be much less educated but (especially after the war of 1737 - 39) they "knew" that the Ottomans are going to be defeated. As a result, the only thing they were doing at the sight of an enemy was to arrange their troops into the square formations and attack, no matter how bad were the numeric odds, usually successfully. In other words, it is not always beneficially to know too much. ;)




Was the corps really that big? Judging by Wiki, it strength by 1701 was around 43,000 and prior to this never exceeded 68,000.
Well Russia did not want to remain alone in the 35-39 war so they took any deal they could have as long as it was possible.

And I have to disagree. Knowing something is more beneficial. The important matter is how you use the information. As far as I know the Austrians expected a quick victory like with Eugene of Savoye as commander in 1716-18. Now that was what made their performance bad. Never underestimate you enemy. And the Ottomans learned from their mistakes in 1716 and turned it around. The information you have may even help you to know what the next moves will be.

Yes, by 1826 the Janissary Corps had 135,000 men. A lot of them were not even professional soldiers.
 
Well Russia did not want to remain alone in the 35-39 war so they took any deal they could have as long as it was possible.

They were quite successful by Austrian ill-fated intervention on their side forced them to give away all their gains.

And I have to disagree. Knowing something is more beneficial.

Couple comments:

1st, knowing something is beneficial only when you can use that knowledge to your advantage. The author's point was that Austrians could not.

2nd, you missed the main point: from author's perspective the most important part of the "knowledge" was an attitude: the Russians "knew" that they will defeat the Ottomans while the Austrians were not sure in themselves.

The important matter is how you use the information. As far as I know the Austrians expected a quick victory like with Eugene of Savoye as commander in 1716-18.

The only thing I can say on this specific subject is that only the fools would expect from the mediocre commanders the same performance as was shown by a military genius. :rolleyes:
 
The Young Turks were Liberal. Calling a supporters group Janissaries goes against their ideological beliefs.

Imagine it is the 1920s. The Ottoman Empire managed to keep the 1876 borders of the Balkans. In the 1920s as ideological groups start growing like Pan-Turkist, Communist, Pan-Islamic... one of them, most likely the latter, might create a supporters group called Janissaries. Mostly made up by Muslims from the Balkans and Caucasus (Bosnians, Albanians, Georgians, Circassians). Like what blackshirst were for Mussolini.

Yeah, they were liberal, but that doesn't mean they could make an elite force named the Janissaries.
 
I always had an idea, that in some ATL, the old janissaries Corp was all disbanded and killed, but later, a smaller New Corp created by Abdulmejid I, called the New Janissaries, which uses new weaponry and new clothing, and made up from ethnic Christians Armenians (don’t be offended), or becomes a new military Corp where anyone can join, so ethnic Turks
 
I always had an idea, that in some ATL, the old janissaries Corp was all disbanded and killed, but later, a smaller New Corp created by Abdulmejid I, called the New Janissaries, which uses new weaponry and new clothing, and made up from ethnic Christians Armenians (don’t be offended), or becomes a new military Corp where anyone can join, so ethnic Turks

Recruiting Christians as new Janissaries in the 19th century... Nicholas I is going to like that sooooo much -_____-
 
Top