Yes I am aware the devshirme was ended before the 1600s. I was speaking of the Janissary institution in particular. It certainly helped in the rise of the Empire, but also degenerated as you said, into an entrenched anti-reform class. I think it's more than possible that Ottomans could have done fairly well without it and probably modernized more rapidly and effectively.
Weaker Ottoman Empire post 1500?
- Thread starter Basileus Giorgios
- Start date
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Slavery is possible, but not the sort of plantation slavery that Westerners are probably thinking of when they hear that word. In Islamic law, slavery is more like Western indentured servitude. Slaves have extensive human rights, and can sue their masters if they are abused. They are considered spiritually equal to free men (slaves could be imams) and slavery didn't cause any social disability, i.e. the slave of a pasha had higher social rank than a free peasant.
In addition, it was common for slaves to be married to their masters' children, including Africans, which would be unthinkable in the West.
Slavery was entirely domestic. It is true that the Ottoman Empire was one of the larger external destinations for African slaves, but only for a couple of decades between when Europeans abandoned it to when the Ottomans did.
But the number of slaves sent to the Ottoman Empire was utterly trivial compared to the massive number of slaves sent to European colonies, and their treatment and status was incomparably higher in the Islamic world; also, the numbers were tiny compared to the number of slaves in actual African polities.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Well, as I'm saying, I think it's a two-part answer. Was the original Janissary system good for the empire in the long-run? Certainly. Without it the Ottoman Empire wouldn't have been as successful or centralized as it was.
The second part of the answer is more complicated. If the Janissaries hadn't been allowed to degenerate, and been retained under the same strict discipline and training as an elite corps, it could have continued to contribute to the well-being of the empire. It wasn't necessary to let it degenerate into a militarily useless yet powerful social class, but once that happened, it became a hindrance to the modernization of the empire.
But even then, it was a matter of personalities. If Selim III had had the fortitude of his successor Mahmud II, the empire could have begun its reform process 50 years earlier and been much more successful.
Where did the Chief Black Eunch (and black eunuchs in general) come from, then?
And the Czar purchased an Ethiopian who grew up to be the Russian general Hannibal Abram, an ancestor of the poet Pushkin, from an Ottoman slave market.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I just came home from dinner at an Armenian's house here in Istanbul. Most of the ethnic animosities held by the ex-Ottoman peoples are incomprehensible to Turks. I have no problem saying it: by blood I'm more Albanian than Turkish, and probably also more Circassian than Turkish. So what? Everyone should just get over it - it doesn't matter. People are taught to hate by nationalist propaganda. A mature person ought to be able to critically evaluate history and be able to see the positives and negatives of every situation.
For example, protected by the Ottomans, the Greeks were able to rise from total commercial servitude to Genoa and Venice in the late-Byzantine era to regaining a prominent place in Mediterranean (and even world) trade - without which Greece might not have even been possible. Also, they should be grateful for the food.
Actually, I'm hard pressed to see many negatives for the Greeks. What was the alternative to the Ottomans? They didn't have enough power to accomplish anything themselves, and the Ottomans reunified the former-Byzantine world, and all the Greeks, in one polity. What would their "national" development have been like outside the Ottoman context?
I think the chances of a unitary Greek state would have been extremely unlikely.
Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by fortitude. Could the New Order troops have beaten all the rebellious Janissary? They were pretty badly outnumbered I thought, although I suppose the sipahis might be persuaded to side with the state as they eventually did.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think he meant that slavery in the Western sense wasn't practiced, i.e. slaves were human beings with legal rights, not pure property like American plantation slaves.
The process of becoming a slave was without a doubt horrible, but there's really no comparison between Ottoman slavery and plantation slavery.
Regarding eunuchs, despite their use, castration is seriously forbidden in Islam; that had to be done outside Muslim territory. Obviously turning a blind eye to it was hypocritical and cynical, but no society is perfect.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Selim III had plenty of resources to defeat the rebels, including elements of the Janissaries. His prospects were certainly better than Mahmud's. He was a just a weak and vacillating man.
Well. It is possible that if Byzantium survives it could become what we know as a Greek state at some point. However you are right in many ways. Greek cultural identity and culture developed because of the Ottomans, while Greeks in the empire also enjoyed quite a bit of wealth and prosperity. Modern Greece for both good and bad, owe's most of it's current existence and culture to the Ottomans.
Its almost frightening that 4/5 pages in this tread have little to do with the OP, but have rather desintegrated into argument over who the Ottomans are, and their place in history. And the occasional nationalistic stuff.
PS: Just stating facts, Im not pointing fingers at anyone.
PS: Just stating facts, Im not pointing fingers at anyone.
Hmm...here's a thought.
Could a powerful European counterweight to the Ottomans arise in this same time period?
The Ottomans could still be as strong as OTL, but this hypothetical Euro-competitor could be strong enough to keep them contained and thus not, per the OP, a "headache" to Western Europe.
Could a powerful European counterweight to the Ottomans arise in this same time period?
The Ottomans could still be as strong as OTL, but this hypothetical Euro-competitor could be strong enough to keep them contained and thus not, per the OP, a "headache" to Western Europe.
Nikephoros
Banned
Agreed. But apparently, because it was practiced by the great infallible Ottomans, it's a positive thing.
Also agree on the ethno-snarking. BTW, I'm not Greek either. I have little sympathy for the modern state of Greece. (Okay, I like their women, but oh well
)Actually, I believe that your insistence that it isn't slavery is propaganda as well. Drafting children isn't conscription. It's slavery. Of course, since it was done by the Ottomans, it isn't really a bad thing.
Yeah that is what your Westernized books tell you. I could'nt imagine having them at least talk a little bit more positive about Ottomans. It's oke, cause it's not your fault for having sources wich are crap to start with
Can you provide us with your great sources?
Okay, then explain to me how Segou, Songhai, Mali, and Ghana, all Muslim states, were up to one third slave.
Also explain to me Zanj and Ghulams. Are they slaves?
Most slaves in Islamic countries didn't reach the top offices that some slaves, fx Mameluks may have
Because they are taken against their will. Whether their parents wanted to basically "sell" them, or whether their parents didn't, they were taken by the state to do what the state wanted them to do.
But they did. People, and governments, do all sorts of things that they would consider immoral. But they do them anyways.
I thought the Hapsburgs weren't strong enough in this time period--didn't you say it was standard policy for the Hapsburg armies to avoid set-piece engagements with the Ottomans hereabouts?
I suppose they would be a good candidate for the job...
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Dude. A slave is someone who is the property of another person. There was slavery in the Ottoman Empire, and that is bad. And it lasted longer than in Europe, which is even worse. But the Janissaries weren't slaves, and it wasn't bad. You aren't a slave if you have a salary, and you're certainly not a slave if you aren't owned by someone. I don't understand why all discussions of Islam or the Ottomans have to be derailed by stupid non-issues. Being in the Kapikullu was good, period. The system fell apart because it became too hard to keep people out of the Janissaries because everyone wanted in.
You're talking about peasants, whose choices were dying young of back-breaking manual labor in subsistence farming, or being in the ruling class of a powerful empire with immense social mobility and career options. This is not taking upper-middle class kids out of suburbia and preventing them from becoming stock traders in favor of a stint in the Marines. And it's not even the modern era, so these moral judgements are really bizarre. There is no possible scenario where being chosen was not of immense benefit to the individual and his family. And the well-being of the family and society were carefully weighed. Orphans were preferred. Single children were exempt. Children required for family subsistence were exempt. And it's not four-year olds we're talking about, it's 16-year olds. Midshipmen in later eras in the RN and USN were 12 when they began their careers. Were they slaves?
Nikephoros
Banned
Well, you can call it what you want to call it. But I'm gonna call it slavery, whatever you may think.
They had at least some informal say in the matter, I thought-- it was a parental choice, like boarding school, except with more focus on cannonfire, leadership skills, and stabbing Frenchmen.
From what it sounds like here, the teens or parents don't really have much of a choice in the matter. They can voice complaints and bring up arguments for or against joining the Janissary corps, but, in the end, officials could ignore all that and decide what they want, right?
There are more diplomatic ways to say that sort of thing.
Constantinople
Banned
Eh. Not kingmakers really. Had some influence, but ultimately were powerless when it came to keeping an unpopular emperor, emperor. They were slaves to money, not a political entity on their own.
Agree. This whole thread, which could have been interesting, has been most unseemly, and has brought out rather an unsettling amount of incivility in people on all sides here. Most depressing.
Sargon
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
And I tried my best to have an adult discussion with you, but you are impervious to actual discussion with your reflexive anti-Ottoman nonsense. You have totally failed to respond logically to anything that I've said, after I've taken the time to explain it to you, and just spout this stupid and unsupported, "Duh, they was slaves!" line. You're either too stupid to understand what a slave is, or just plain unwilling to accept that anything about the Ottomans could possibly stray beyond pathetic Victorian stereotypes. Back to the ignore list with a useless poster. Get a clue.