
Things you should know about the Ottoman Janissaries - codermobile
https://www.realmofhistory.com/2018/06/19/facts-ottoman-janissaries/
======
cobbzilla
There are many fun and fascinating similarities to find when comparing the
Ottoman Janissaries and the Roman Praetorian Guard.

Both were established as elite divisions, handpicked for loyalty to the ruler,
and stationed near the capital to discourage power grabs and revolutions.

Over time they both (figuratively) grew fat and lazy and came to understand
and abuse the power that they held.

They both turned into “king makers” for the empire, it being impossible to
take the throne without their support. Some sordid tales here on both sides.

Then, after years of havoc and instability in their respective empires, a
strong emperor claims the throne without their help and then removes them from
any position of power.

~~~
bovermyer
This peaks my interest. Do you have any book recommendations that explore
this?

~~~
cobbzilla
Gibbon's "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was my first
introduction to the Praetorians, I listened to it via free audiobook [1]. I
forgot about where I first learned about the Ottoman history with the
Janissaries.

[1] [http://www.loyalbooks.com/book/the-decline-and-fall-of-
the-r...](http://www.loyalbooks.com/book/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-
empire-vol-i-by-edward-gibbon)

~~~
bovermyer
Thanks!

------
ivanhoe
Interesting thing about Janissaries is that though they were foreigners,
warrior slaves forcefully taken from their Christian families at young age,
quite a few of them managed to move up the ranks and become very powerful
military leaders and statesmen, even Grand Viziers (the most powerful person
after Sultan). A lot of Ottoman Grand Viziers were not of Turkish origin
actually.

------
patrickg_zill
What the article fails to tell you is precisely _why_ the Janissary was a
better soldier...since the training could have been applied to anyone.

The fatalistic view of Allah being in charge extended to the trajectory of the
fired weapon.

The Christian boys retained enough experience from earlier in their lives that
they were more diligent...

------
nurettin
This is a very honest and informative historical documentary. I don't see any
statments that would work in favour of some country or another's political
agenda. Pretty rare we get these.

~~~
acqq
> I don't see any statments

The whole text, starting from the title, is "making it nice" in the modern
tendency of some who like to imply that what was actually vile was "good" or
"not so bad."

How many boys were taken? The OP text mentions hundreds, but that was after
the point which was in Wikipedia specified as the "end of the system" (1)
whereas:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme)

"Shaw writes that their number was 30,000 under Suleiman the Magnificent" \-
that is, that was the size of the army.

More important:

"Devshirme[a] (Ottoman Turkish: دوشيرمه‎, devşirme, literally "lifting" or
"collecting"), also known as _the blood tax_ or _tribute in blood_ ,[2] was
chiefly the practice where by the Ottoman Empire sent military officers to
take _Christian boys_ , ages 8 to 18, _from their families_ in Eastern and
Southeastern Europe in order that they be raised to serve the state.[3] This
tax of sons was imposed _only on the Christian subjects of the empire, in the
villages of the Balkans and Anatolia._ "

"The ideal age of a recruit was between 8 and 10 years of age"

What's actually "not so bad" in taking the 8-10 years old children away to
maintain the army of 30000?

Read the argument of the article:

"Beyond ‘slave soldiers’" "Essentially, they displayed their ‘slave’ status
with pride" \--- oh, that makes it OK then? The boys taken from their families
when they are 8 to be slave solders for life, but "displayed their ‘slave’
status with pride" somehow is an argument that their status is "misleading, if
perceived through the lens of our modern sensibility" (the article tries to
argue). Really?

\----

1) Under the title of "Decline": 1638 or 1648 "In an order sent in multiple
copies to authorities throughout the European provinces in 1666 a devshirme
recruitment target of between 300 and 320 was set for an area covering the
whole of the central and western Balkans." That was the "official end"
according to Wikipedia: "only 300 and 320." Per year, or per month?

~~~
freeflight
> The whole text, starting from the title, is "making it nice" in the modern
> tendency of some of implying that what was actually bad was good.

The thing is, it's neither "bad" nor "good", it's just history. And in that
context, the Janissaries are quite an interesting case because their history
is filled with very extreme ups and downs.

> "Beyond ‘slave soldiers’" "Essentially, they displayed their ‘slave’ status
> with pride" \--- oh, that makes it OK then?

If you'd read the whole Wiki article, instead of just quoting the passages
that support your notion, you'd also realized that their position immensely
changed over the centuries.

Yes, they started out as a "slave soldier" unit in the thousands, made up of
forced converts. But their efficiency on the battlefield quickly made them a
very renowned unit, so renowned that over time even Muslim families tried to
get their children to be recruited.

This went on for a while until the Janissaries became such a powerful
institution that they dominated the Ottoman government and could literally
dethrone the Sultan, which they actually did, even killing Osman II in 1622.

Until in 1826, after centuries of Janissaries running wild, the Sultan Mahmud
II decided "enough is enough" and "disbanded" the Janissaries corps in what is
nowadays known as the Auspicious Incident [0].

So, while they started out as a forced conversion soldier group, they
ultimately turned into something very different. Heck, I'd like to think them
destabilizing the Ottoman empire like they did, was their form of revenge.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident)

~~~
ivanche
> The thing is, it's neither "bad" nor "good", it's just history. And in that
> context, the Janissaries are quite an interesting case because their history
> is filled with very extreme ups and downs.

Let me guess, your country / nation luckily never had anything to do with the
Ottoman empire?

~~~
boomboomsubban
I'm sure those Christians around the Balkans would have much rather been a
part of the Holy Roman Empire that were nothing but kind to the Orthodox.

~~~
dragandj
When you mention it, parts of Serbia that were under Austria-Hungary are
noticeably more urbanized and developed than the parts that were under the
Ottoman Empire, despite them being in the same state for exactly one century.

Turkish slavery/occupation is perceived as much, much worse in folk memory
than the Austrian. Of course, both of these are foreign empires, so neither of
them is good, but one is clearly worse than the other...

~~~
boomboomsubban
>When you mention it, parts of Serbia that were under Austria-Hungary are
noticeably more urbanized and developed than the parts that were under the
Ottoman Empire, despite them being in the same state for exactly one century.

... The parts of Serbia that Austria-Hungary didn't conquer by force about a
hundred years ago were more developed than the parts they did conquer by
force? Clearly the Ottoman's fault.

~~~
acqq
I had to parse slowly and try to figure out about what boomboomsubban wrote,
what I now believe he wants to point is probably:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Campaign_of_World_War_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Campaign_of_World_War_I)

Austria-Hungary fought with the army from and occupied during the World War I
the Serbian "territories" (inhabited with the people who massively died during
the occupation) that dragandj says are still "less developed" today:

From the Wikipedia article: "The estimates of casualties are various: the Serb
sources claim that The Kingdom of Serbia lost more than 1,200,000 inhabitants
during the war (both army and civilian losses), which represented _over 29% of
its overall population and 60% of its male population,[14][15]_ while western
historians put the number _either at 45,000 military deaths and 650,000
civilian deaths[16] or 127,355 military deaths and 82,000 civilian
deaths.[17]_ " The numbers are all over but whatever they are, they are huge
for a small country. To compare with something that happened around the same
time:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide)

"The Armenian Genocide (...) also known as the Armenian Holocaust,[9] was the
Ottoman government's systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenians,[note
2] mostly citizens within the Ottoman Empire." "Date: 1914–1923"

~~~
boomboomsubban
Far more in depth than what I said, but exactly. The territory didn't change
hands peacefully, and that's likely the cause for the development difference.

~~~
dragandj
Wait, what? None of the territories here were changing hands peacefully, and
the World War I events have nothing to do with the Ottomans.

In WWI Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia and that's how the WWI started. It did
a lot of damage to Serbian state. But this is 100 years after 1804, when
Serbia started a process of breaking off from slavery under Turks. By the
mid-19 century Serbia was practically independent.

I am comparing two areas that have been under foreign Empires for a long time.
The area north of Danube and Sava was only briefly under Ottoman rule, and
then was conquered by Austria(+Hungary) while to the south of Danube and Sava
was under Turkish rule for 300-500 years. Not only Serbia, but also Bulgaria,
Macedonia, Albania etc.

All the areas that were ruled by the Turks are backwaters even to this day,
the areas to the north much less so. There are other factors, of course, but
everyone from the Balkans clearly recognizes this (development) dividing line.

WW 1 and WW 2 came later and brought its own share of destruction, but that
destruction came after the nations were formed here, and the distinction I'm
talking about have much older roots, that can still be clearly seen, even in
how the towns and cities are laid out, ways of doing business etc.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Their exacts mat be off, but my principal is correct. Look at Belgrade, a
border town in Ottoman control. South of it the land becomes noticeably less
habitable, with mountains covering most of the region, and Belgrade itself has
been razed 44 times. It's a natural border that is constantly warred over, not
some relic of Ottoman cruelty compared to Hapsburg benevolence.

------
brookhaven_dude
No Assassins Creed (Revelations) references?? I am so disappointed!

~~~
kumarharsh
Or Age of Empires II

------
amadeuspagel
> a slave or a Kul often enjoyed more social benefits and even better
> opportunities than an ordinary subject (as opposed to oppression)

Presumably ordinary subjects were not castrated.

EDIT: Apparently this is not true.

~~~
AlexeyBrin
The Janissaries weren't castrated. Are you confusing them with the Eunuchs ?

~~~
jessaustin
Perhaps it was the Unsullied?

------
mwexler
And not a single mention of Pournelle's Janissaries. It's as if the Ottomans
(or the post's author) had never read this series...

[https://www.baen.com/Chapters/9780671877095/9780671877095.ht...](https://www.baen.com/Chapters/9780671877095/9780671877095.htm)

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

~~~
drharby
Baen?

~~~
LyndsySimon
It's a Gaelic word for a baby.

It's also a sci-fi book publisher, which is probably what the OP was referring
to :)

~~~
mwexler
Yes, it really was a post in jest. I guess the downvotes show just how funny
it wasn't.

~~~
drharby
Or how diverse the community's sense of humor is :^)

