From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Janissary article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Early Modern Warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792)

Contents 1 Comments 1.1 Paragraph 1.2 janissary revolts 1.3 Mustaches or beards or both? 1.4 capitalization 1.5 WRONG PICTURE AND TEXT 1.6 Janissary Music 1.7 1380 1.8 Youths? 1.9 Some corrections 1.10 Patrol painting 1.11 WHAT? 1.12 FACTS PRO-AND-CON ABOUT WHETHER DEVSHIRME SYSTEM WAS WANTED/NOT WANTED 1.13 Edited Popular Culture section 1.14 NPOV 1.15 No Sources 1.16 Spahis 1.17 WP:MILHIST Assessment 1.18 Doesn't Make Sense

[edit] Comments

[edit] Paragraph

I added an intro paragraph to this and a mention of janissary bands, but the rest of this article could do with going through by somebody who knows more about the subject than me. --Camembert

"Of course, residents could hardly appreciate the custom."

According to Jason Goodwin's "Lords of the Horizons", it's possible they did:

"As the convoy wound its way across Muslim Bosnia, it had to be heavily guarded to prevent parents substituting their own children."

P.

[edit] janissary revolts

They also had support of the bektashie sect.

should 'bektashie' say 'bektashi' instead? should it then also be a link to the wikipedia article on 'bektashi'?

[edit] Mustaches or beards or both?

In the article it said janissaries were only aloud to grow mustaches but the picture shows them having both mustaches and beards? So what’s the truth?

They were only allowed to have mustaches so that is the correct answer. Strange picture that is, maybe it should be deleted... /The Phoenix 08:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Done, I deleted it and replaced it with this one [[1]] which is much more accurate, it works well with the other image [[2]], the pictures compliment each other Brastite

[edit] capitalization

Someone needs to decide whether Janissary is a proper noun or not, then make the capitalization consistent.

[edit] WRONG PICTURE AND TEXT

That picture and accompanying text needs to be removed or substituted. It most definitely doesn't show Greek Janissary recruits. The corps had ben destroyed decades earlier and the levy anyway had ceased effectively by the end of the 17th c. The costumes depicted are native Greek not Janissary uniforms.

---I disagree, the painting and text should stay, the jannisaries were still used in the 18th c. despite the fact that they were no longer the great potent forces they had once been. The timar system was still used in the 18th century although it was falling into disuse by then and the Janissaries became no more than a part-time militia, often composed of guildsmen from the towns and chiefly important as a dangerous urban mob.

Also keep in mind that Jean Léon Gérôme painted events of the Greek struggle for independence after they occured, such an example can be seen in the painting of the Greek leader Markos Botsaris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Botsaris ) which was completed by Gerome in 1874, The artist Jean-Leon Gerome was born in 1824, One year after Markos Botsaris died, It shouldn’t come as a surprise though, Gérôme produced many historical paintings portraying characters such as Cleopatra, Cesar, Louis XIV and Moliere (not necessarily together in the same picture) and he also did Genre Painting, infact he did numerous paintings of Janissary corps when he traveled through the Balkans, Anatolia, North Africa and the Levant in the 1800’s, whilst there he painted realistic depictions of scenes from everyday life throughout these areas, and numerous Jannisaries were infact depicted as wearing the Greek kilt (the Foustanella), although it was not the official uniform of the Janissary corps it was being worn, more paintings of jannisaries done by Jean Léon Gérôme can be seen here (http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?search=arnaut&aidForm=9)

And also I have some high quality paintings of Jannisaries which I might add soon

- The Caption in the First picture is incorrect. It states that those Greek children converted to Islam, however it does not mention that children in the Janissary Corp were children who were violently kidnapped from Christian villages and forced to convert to Islam. The children did not have the option, they were forced to convert. I have changed the caption accordingly... --Xenophonos 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This picture is have some mistakes. I am a muslim and I go to mosque every friday, and I want to inform you there no marbles on the floor. Turkish mosques are covered with carpets. Also the jannisaries never forced to convert Islam. Because they are slaves and Ottomans did'nt care their religious beliefs.

Janissary doesnt mean "soldier of victory". That is not "yeniç(there is no such wor 'yeniç' in turkish) eri(that means 'man' in old turkish but we use it now for soldiers)" , that is "yeni(new) çeri(soldier)". You can look here: TDK Dictionary(Offical Turkish Goverment Dictionary)

Ruzgar 01:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are VERY misinformed when you say, "Also the jannisaries never forced to convert Islam. Because they are slaves and Ottomans did'nt care their religious beliefs." That statement is wrong, one of the requirements of the Janissaries was to be Muslim. Most Janissaries were usually Christian boys "recruited" from their Christian villages. They were forced to convert as part of the training to becoming a Janissary. Statement in the picture changed back to how it was, saying that the children were forced to convert to Islam, which is historically accurate, there was no choice involved for the child. --Xenophonos 09:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Janissary Music

I know of a link that has Janissary music,.. it could be added to the article so that people could listen to some. This is the link: [3]

[edit] 1380

I was just perusing this and it bothered me that it said Sultan Selim I was sultan in 1380. Given that Selim ruled during the Battle of Chaldiran (1514) and the conquest of Egypt and Syria (1516-7), something is clearly wrong. The sultan in 1380 was the same Murad I mentioned earlier in the article. I am not enough of an authority on the subject to fix it without doing research I don't have time to do, but this needs to be taken care of some way or another.

[edit] Youths?

"especially Christian youths and prisoners-of-war" - I was told in school that they were taking them from baby age. Isn't youth for a bit older ages? --www.doc 03:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some corrections

Orta does not mean hearth. Ocak which means literally hearth is the proper name for the Janissary organisation. Wearing beards and marriage was banned but from the 17th Century, Janissaries began to ignore these rules and started to engage in trades and craftsmanship. The contradiction with "free Muslims" is wrong since Janissaries were not slaves but carried the title Kapıkulu ("door slave") (among other military devshirmes) as an indicator that they collectively belong to the Sultan's "door". Behemoth 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As For Kapıkulu it doesn't mean "door slave".Word of köle is the correct translation for slave while kul mean "willingly servant".It is used for situations who obeys orders of an important person and is looking forward to learn and improve from him/her.

kul and köle are merely the variants of the same word.

[edit] Patrol painting

Obviously, the soldiers depicted are not Janissaries and the name of the painting mentions no Janissaries, just a "Patrol in Smyrna". Also, those young Greeks painting is not related to Janissaries, I assume. After all, Orientalist painters are not always a good choice for a delicate portrayal.

[edit] WHAT?

"While some hated losing their sons, other local residents appreciated the custom, as there is evidence that some Christians sought to have their children recruited as a way to gain social advancement. In some cases bribes were given and ages were lied about."

I would like to see this evidence if a source could be provided. How could the custom be appreciated if the children were taken away from the families never to see them again; they did not know where they came from nor who their family members were...this statement among others should be taken out. --Xenophonos 21:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• It may sound heartless to pampered modern man with access to such luxury as computers, but in the historical context, for the majority of the rural poor, it was rather common sense, and not without parallels in the Christian world, such as the oblate system: donating a child -often too young to have any say- to a religious order, or even till today laying a baby to be found without identification and hopefully raised in an orphanage- even such practtices can be better then starving to death: the main guilt lies often with poverty, more then lack of parental feelings. Fastifex 09:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How can such a statement be taken seriously when there are centuries worth of documentation that the Ottomans would enter villages of Greeks, Albanians and others, break down the doors of the peasants and steal children at gunpoint? The order of the Janissaries was not some charitous religious order, they were the personal bodyguards to the Sultan, whose main objective was warfare.

You mention poverty being the main issue behind the Janissary recruiting process. A pampered modern man wouldn't know that for a farmer, the more hands you have helping you, the better your harvest will be. So why would these villagers willingly give up their children; not only would they lose their progeny by giving them to the enemy but their farms and livelihoods would be at stake as a result. It would seem that they were doing something against their will, maybe because the Janissaries stealing the children did it at gunpoint. Not a very humane procedure for a "Religious Order"

So again, is there a source on the "Humanitarian" endeavors of the Janissaries? --Xenophonos 03:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither the article nor this talk page says or means to 'justify' the Ottoman motivation, which obviously was to serve the empire, not the recruits; but it explains why part of the rural population did see social advancement for their children as a good thing on balance (they must all have had mixed feelings), even at the price of a separation that was costly emotionally and -a good point- as labour. Fastifex 06:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• The article and this talk page are under the discretion of those that type it. Because a sentence in the article says "the recruitment of Janissaries might have been seen as a way of social advancement", without hard evidence supporting this claim, I truly doubt it was seen this way for reasons I mentioned earlier. Now sure, the Janissaries were an elite order with many privileges within Ottoman Turk society, but to say the families willingly gave up their children - who would never get to know who their parents were, then how would the parents ever be rewarded? For all the families knew, they could one day be under the sword of their Janissary son in years later. That's why it was seen as a great atrocity to lose their son(s). Basically, it doesn't make sense to say the Families did it for social advancement when there was no way for their sons to know who their parents were, and thus impossible to ever include their parents in those social benefits which they enjoyed. In reality, the only interaction between Janissaries and the villagers of Christian towns was through further recruitment, war and pogroms. --Xenophonos 21:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this claim stood out as surprising to me at first glance when I was reading this article. For all I know, it could be true. Certainly times were different and in an age when so many children died young, etc. it may well have been a way to increase social position. However, it certainly needs a reference, and preferably one which is clearly not biased. It is common for those who enslave others to claim that enslavement has positive aspects and we should be careful to scrutinize such claims to ensure their accuracy. InvictaHOG 04:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

-"Devshirme", the recruitment process of collecting young Christian children to become Janissaries was in no way, shape or form a way for social advancement. From the parents' point of view, their children were forcefully taken against their will to become the elite soldiers of the enemy, the Ottoman Turks. Neither they nor their children would ever meet or see eachother again. In fact, that child might one day come back to his former village with the purpose of slaughtering everyone, and unknowingly kill his former family. The intent of Devshirme was to make the Christians think twice about revolting, for they might be faced with killing their children...or being killed by them.

Nor was it poverty that led to this practice. One thing about the farming villages of the Balkans, or any farm for that matter, the more hands you have working the fields, the more you will produce and be able to sell at the market. Having your sons taken away in fact, fostered poverty.

So is there any other argument for the "appreciation of the custom" of Devshirme, other than the opinions of emotional Ottoman sympathizers? I think not. Janissary recruitment was disgusting. --Xenophonos 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody asked your opinion. Because if that was the case, I would call Janissary recruitment brilliant. Think about it like this. You live as a peasant, bordering one of the greatest super-powers of the world. They are recruiting troops for their ELITE army. Wouldn't YOU want your son to be part of it? If it were me, I would be proud to give away all my sons to such a magnificent super-power and save them from unforseen poverty and of that sort. WiiVolve 13:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Separating a mother from her young boy, changing his religion, changing his language and converting him from an oppressed-paysant-to-be to a soldier(-to-die) was brilliant? How about cruelsome, inhuman, barbaric, racist, genocidal (read the definition)? It would be partly justifiable to consider the historic circumstances and the cruelty of the era. But to think that today there are still people who defend this practice, is simply outrageous. NikoSilver 14:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah well, I don't think that any of us can imagine what anybody would have wanted six hundred years ago :) I suppose there are two things at play here: one is the fact that the word (and the meaning as we know today) democracy etc didn't exist at all back then, and two, it is easy to judge the events of long ago with the standards of today. However, what is for sure is that if a system like that existed today, it would be pretty ugly to say the least. But we cannot know what the people of that age were thinking either. Maybe some considered it a good thing to send their kids to the elite army, maybe some others saw it as a cruel way of losing their kids.. Who knows? Maybe Ottomans truly felt it was a good way to "spread the good word of Islam", and the Orthodox thought it was an evil way to kill their "good word".. Just cite the facts and let the readers make up their own minds I say, no need to mention "brilliant" or "genocidal" :)) Baristarim 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, people like you make me think that Muslims or Turkish people should control the Turkey WikiProjects. At least that would give it a NPOV. People like you only give bad impressions about Ottomans. I would like to invite you to read this article from the Ottoman Empire page:

Largely for practical reasons, the Ottoman Empire was, in a broad sense, tolerant towards its non-Muslim subjects; it did not, for instance, forcibly convert them to Islam. The sultans took their primary duty to be service to the interests of the state, which could not survive without taxes and a strong administrative system. The state's relationship with the Greek Orthodox Church, for example, was largely peaceful, and the church's structure was kept intact and largely left alone but under close control and scrutiny until the Greek War of Independence of 1821–1831 and, later in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the rise of the Ottoman constitutional monarchy, which was driven to some extent by nationalistic currents, tried to be balanced with ottomanism. Other churches, like the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, were dissolved and placed under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Church. However, there were economic disadvantages to being a Christian because of higher taxation. On the other hand, the empire often served as a refuge for the persecuted and exiled Jews of Europe; for example, following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, Sultan Beyazid II welcomed them into Ottoman lands. -- WiiVolve 02:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, I take issue with your "people like you..." bit, especially by genocidal practice supporters. Consider this a WP:NPA warning. Second, thanks for directing me to this completely unsourced and WP:OR piece of POV in Ottoman Empire#State and Religion, which is supposed to be a neutral summary of the also unsourced and WP:OR "main article" called State and Religion (Ottoman Empire). I added tags for now, and I'll be dealing with them next. NikoSilver 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on some basic points of what people believed 600 years ago. First and foremost, a peasant's family meant everything to them, probably moreso back then than families of today. Second, the Turks were definitely not loved, they were an empire which had forcefully conquered vast regions. Third, no Greek, Albanian, Serb, or anyone else would voluntarily join the army of the enemy only to one day be sent back to their home village with orders to massacre their families. Fourth, agriculture was the backbone of most Balkan village economies. To have your sons forcefully taken away would only further impoverish your family. Fifth, Christians indeed had to pay a "Head Tax" to literally, keep their heads. Failure to pay this would either mean execution on the spot or forced military service. These are not things that would make Christian subjects loyal to the Ottoman empire. And yes, the Head Tax custom and other customs were definitely a form of forced conversion. So yes, even though many centuries have passed, any Christian villager would not be a huge fan of the Ottomans. However, what is true is that the forced child tax on Christians was repudiated in the 17th century by law, however the custom still existed and was still implemented by zealous Pasha's and Janissary leaders as they saw fit; they could get away with solidifying their own individual power, for the Ottoman Empire was waning by the 1700's. --Xenophonos 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FACTS PRO-AND-CON ABOUT WHETHER DEVSHIRME SYSTEM WAS WANTED/NOT WANTED

These are from Uzuncarsili's book, "Osmanli Devlet Teskilatindan Kapikulu Ocaklari", ISBN-975-16-0056-1. He has a large number of direct quotations from primary sources.

The one-in-five rule in the article is wrong and should be fixed. This is an earlier law the Pencik system and applied to one-in-five war captives being turned Janissary. The devshirme system came later.

The devshirme was done once every 3-8 years, according to need.

These rules were enforced very strictly:

• The numbers were: 1 out of every 40 houses.
• The coming of the devshirme collectors was told ahead of time and the boys holding their baptism papers, accompanied by their fathers and with the local priest present were gathered together.
• Baptism papers were scrutinized to make sure no married boys were taken.
• Ages 14-18 were preferred, though 8-20 could be taken.
• No Jewish boys were taken – they were regarded as unsuitable since they engaged in commerce.
• For the same reason, no boy from Istanbul or Bursa could be taken.
• No single son could be taken
• No sons of shepherds could be taken
• Boys could have no physical deformities. The shortest and the tallest were not taken.
• Boys that could speak Turkish could not be taken
• Orphaned boys, because they might have had to fend for themselves and would be worldly were not taken.
• Boys that had some artisanship skill could not be taken
• Boys that had traveled to Istanbul previously were not taken

The book lists some cases where the official in question was demoted and exiled for not enforcing the rules strictly. Murad IV had an official beheaded for not obeying the rules and harrassing the local population.

-- PRO. The existence and enforcement of such selection criteria shows that the devshirme system was not something the locals were trying extremely hard to get out of.

• Detailed descriptions of the boys were written down in 2 copies, one sent directly to Istanbul, the other traveling with the boys and the two copies were checked against one another and the boys upon arrival.

-- CON. This shows that there was a tendency that boys could be switched during the journey back.

• The only exception to the Christian origin requirement were the Bosnians. Their group was exceptionally well watched during the journey since they were already circumsized.

-- CON / PRO?. The special emphasis on guarding Bosnian boys shows that perhaps the Muslim populations would like to send their boys off as janissary.

• Suleyman I has an edict as follows: “No boys of Russian, Persian, Gypsy or Turk reaya or boys of any reaya from Harput, Diyarbekir or Malatya shall be taken. If anybody takes in these boys because of bribe, request from high places, or any other reason, let them be damned by all 24.000 prophets etc. etc.”

-- PRO. An edict having to explicitly forbid some boys being enrolled.

• The district of Prepolya in Herzegovina did not want to give boys in 1580 and took up arms.

-- CON. People in armed rebellion.

• Boys that had died en route or were sick and left behind were double checked with the kadi of the exact location they were left behind.

-- CON. People must have been trying this way of getting the boys back. Or maybe it was a check against the boys being sold off as slaves?

• There are edicts that no Hungarian or Croatian boys to be taken since they were found to not convert truly and were not deemed reliable. (16th century)
• Trebizond after Mehmed II was left out of the devshirme system due to their “unruliness”. Selim I, who was governor of Trebizond when he was a prince decided to include them back in the system as a reward for their loyalty during his governorship and is angry at his vizier who disagrees.

-- PRO. If a district was found to be unreliable, unmanageable etc. it was left out of the system. This argues that discontent with being enrolled was not universal.

• There are cases where the poll tax for the enrolled boy continued after his enrollment. There are numerous petitions/complaints from rank-and-file Janissaries that their relatives are being asked to pay poll tax for them, stating their Christian name, their relative's details etc.
• There are well documented cases of viziers and pashas visiting / corresponding with their families. Among them:
  • Grand Vizier Sokullu Mehmed Pasha (he made his brother the Serbian Patriarch),
  • Mustafa Bey, Bey of Lipve, Hungary. His relatives who are active in the Austrian court wish to be presented to the Sultan and he tries to arrange it,
  • Chief Admiral Sinan Pasha, originally of Messina stops with the navy in Messina and visits his mother and sisters,
  • Grand Vizier Hasan Pasha visits his Armenian village on his way at the head of the armies going to the Iran campaign.

-- PRO. The boys did not forget their background as often is claimed.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Free smyrnan (talk • contribs) 22:55, November 30, 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a huge amount of work Smyrnan! I don't want to spoil it, but do we have a direct quote from an independent source that disputes the obvious (i.e. that they wouldn't want their kids to be given as tax). On the other hand, I'd also like to see if anyone has documented reactions to this, or how it is described. NikoSilver 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What would such evidence be? A petition from an Armenian peasant in Harput against the edict of Suleyman I? :) Joke aside, this is a serious question. History often is built upon "evidence" such as those detailed above and making inferences. I realize that my writing a few rough translations does not count as evidence, but the source I quoted has primary source (archive numbers and such) references to all of the above. Do you disagree with the inferences (which are mine) such as an edict explicitly forbidding boys being taken from a region shows that there was some danger (!) that these unwanted boys were being collected? If so, which ones do you disagree with? For example the cases that show rank-and-file Janissaries petitioning on behalf of their relatives is fairly good proof that Janissaries did not forget where they came from even if you claim that a Grand Vizier or two could be an exception. --Free smyrnan 23:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah! I can imagine the consequences on those who would protest! I exclaimed your work, but I have no idea how reliable that source is, or how selective its content may be. I am not disputing nor disagreeing with the logic, (WP:OR does). I'd like to see independent citation that people wanted to give their kids away. Garnet put a quote in WPGRTR about Bosnians. I am talking about non-followers of Islam and non-admirers of the Ottomans (there were many more). NikoSilver 00:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but i think that there cannot be any support for this "custom" in the moderm, civilized world... I cannot imagine of a mother giving away her son, nor of a christian father "singing joyfully" that his son would be circumsized and been raised with beliefs, customs and ideas other than his own's, and with hate for his, previously, fellow co-christians and compatriots (the janissaries were used many times to put down revolts). of course, there must had been isolated cases of medieval and modern Medeas. but there were also cases were the janissaries revolted against their "masters" (some of them alledgelly connected with the rediscovery of their ethnic and religious origins), not to mention the hundrends of folk tales (at least in Greece) talking about, e.g. how 3 janissaries found out that they are brothers when they visited their father's grave, after having killed their own mother and sister (without of course knowing...), or how male children were abducted by their families, deserting villages from child voices... Maybe i am expressing a radical POV, but IMO this custom should be adressed today as the long lost (thankfully!) barbaric custom human sacrifice is adressed. Hectorian 00:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Niko, can you elaborate on what you mean by independent? I truly do not understand. As for the quality of the source I quote... The discussion above states stuff such as doors being beaten down and children being taken away at gunpoint. Sources, none. I quote a source that puts down the rules the official had to follow and a couple of examples of officials being punished for not following the rules. Sources, at 2nd hand, Kavanin-i Yeniceriyan (the law of the Janissary) of 16th century and specific archival numbers of petitions/decrees etc. What are you disputing? If you don't like the source I quote, it is up to you to find a better one, or to show that this particular source is not reliable, makes up archival references etc.

The idea of the Janissary is necessarily a very emotional one. I am sure parents, at least mothers, were not overjoyed. Hell, my mother cried when I went away to college, can you imagine what it must have been like seeing your son go away to Istanbul at 16th century? It would have been disliked even on that basis. And then, during the nation-making phase, the "contributing" nations to the janissary system had to come to terms with it. It does not surprise me that a certain amount of historic revisionism would occur.

But, consider the folk tale above dispassionately. 3 janissaries forget they are brothers and kill their mother/sister. Aside from the early war captive->janissary conversions, there are detailed records kept of janissary backgrounds. They are the only gov corps in the OE at the time to draw cash salary directly from the imperial purse and *everything* is written down for that reason! They were taken mostly at the ages of 14-18. They were mostly taken from not border regions under dispute, but Christian populations *within* the OE. They were not taken from regions with a lot of unrest. What is the likelihood of this particular folk tale *really* being true and verifiable? Please do consider putting aside misconceptions even though it is against nation-building mythology.

BTW, the janissary presents a problem in Turkish nation-building as well. The "warrior nation" of Turks used Christians to wage its wars? There are some in Turkey that claim that the janissary *completely* forgot his background and therefore fits them in that way in the "national history", conveniently ignoring janissary correspondence and the age of recruitment and that there were no "dragomen"(translators) in palace bureaucracy for a long time (ie the bureaucrats knew the necessary languages). There are some in Turkey that claim that the janissary plotted the demise of the OE due to "his foreign blood", and concentrate almost fully on the later period of the corps, when they became a problem rather than a solution, fitting them in the "national history" that way and again conveniently ignoring that this was a period when the entry into the corps included Turks and the centuries of Ottoman satisfaction with the corps. The existence of the janissary cannot be conveniently explained by either side if one must remain within national ideology.

Hectorian: I will not claim that ancient human sacrifice is a barbaric custom. Just because Greeks came up with the term "barbar" does not mean we must slap it on everything we do not like. Was it considered normal at the time? Did people try to get out of it? Did people rebel because of it? Or did people consider it simply unfortunate? Labels such as these get in the way of facts and trying to learn about the events of the time. *Nobody* is supporting the janissary custom *today*. A few more labels and I am going to start believing the Turkish saying: "[the purpose of entering the vineyard] is not to eat grapes, but rather to beat up the vineyardkeeper". :) Regards. --Free smyrnan 06:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I used the term "barbaric" in the way it is used today in the english world, not as ancient Greeks used it. As for the folk tale, it is very unlikely that what the story says was ever true, but, it perfectly illustrates how this custom was perceived by, at least, the Christian subjects of the Sultan. the issue does has some historic revisionism in it, and i am not surprised either... and, to be honest, if this would ever happen to me or my children (some day), i would raise up generation with hate... Also, note, that this is just 1 out of hundrends of folk tales, legends and songs. and maybe because Greece was not a border region, this custom lasted long enough to get a really bad reputation here. about something i did not know so far, they were not taken from regions with a lot of unrest, it seems kinda obvious to me: taking the male children of a population group, u eliminate the possibility of a future unrest.... it could had been used for that reason as well. u do not seem to be supporting this custom, so, i was not refering to u:). but there are people who still do (to them i was refering to). Regards Hectorian 09:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

About eliminating possibility of unrest by taking in male children: To do that you need to reduce the numbers of the population significantly. At the period when the janissaries were solely derived from the Christian population, their standing numbers were about 50,000. That means, if you recruit every 4 years and assume the average soldier served 20 years, every 4 years 10,000 boys would be collected. Even assuming the death rate was 50%, it would be 20,000 boys every 4 years. This at the rate of 1/40 households -- let's reduce that to 1/20. That makes it 400,000 households. Assume 4 people per household (I am intentionally low-balling all of these estimates). So, that comes to 20,000 out of 1,600,000 minimum population to make it work. Did the OE have more than that number of Christian peasants? Yes. Even if that was the entire population, would this decrease the population enough to eliminate the possibility of unrest? No. As a method of weakening local populations this would not have worked. Not to mention that the OE would have no reason to wish for less poll tax payers and less recruitment capability in the next generation. --Free smyrnan 10:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

U are right about that, and this is proven by the fact that the unrests never stopped during the Ottoman times. But we should also take into consideration the number of the Christian subjects of the Sultan at that time. Even if we assume that 10,000 boys were taken every 4 years, and having in mind that the Greeks (i am not much aware of other groups' populations) were accounted at about 2.5-4 million during the first centuries of the Ottoman control, this would mean that every 4 years, at least 3-5,000 male children were taken as janissaries (since other christian groups-Serbs, Bulgarians, Armenians-were living near the borders, and thus, they were excluded). placing this in accordance to the population of modern Turkey, this would mean 1 or 2 hundrends of thousands children. for a small ethnic group, even that number was devastating. perhaps this is why so many Greek historians have called this practice demographic bleeding. of course, as in all matters related to history, we should not look at it isolated. i mean, that apart from the janissaries, many christian citizens of the OE served in the ottoman navy (obviously, the Greek islanders, some times turning against the ottomans, as it happened in the Battle of Lepanto (1571)) and others in various positions in the ottoman administration (dragomans, as u said above). the opportunities left for that millet to organise uprisings or rebellions were thus limitted, and when they broke out, the janissaries were send to deal with them... So, in fact it was also a practice to eliminate any possible threat by the Greeks (and others) against the sultan's authority, by using their own children against them. Hectorian 11:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The time the janissary corps was founded the Ottomans were much more concerned about the unruliness and unreliability of the tribal warriors, not to mention they still had not consolidated the Beyliks. Thus, I don't think the main plan and rationale was to use the Greeks' children against the Greeks but to constitute a class of warrior that had no loyalties other than to the Sultan himself. --Free smyrnan 13:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose may had been different, but among the results was that one too. Hectorian 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Smyrnan: You cite a source that is not only Pro-Ottoman and shows Devshirme in an overly good light IMO, but it's also WRITTEN IN TURKISH! Can you blame us for thinking that there might be one too many fabrications in there? Also, how are we supposed to double check the author's claims? I noticed that most of the citations for the page are drawn from that book and I'm sure you have a big role in this. So, not only am I a little skeptical about your citation, I also have another problem with this sentence:

"They [Christians rounded up by devshirme to be potential Janissaries] were also expected to convert to Islam. All did, as Christians were not allowed to bear arms in the Ottoman Empire until the 19th century."

-I SERIOUSLY doubt that they were only "expected" to convert. I doubt the elite warrior class were sitting there, begging and hoping for some 13 Christian boy to convert to Islam. It was forced conversion plain and simple, you know it and I know it. If the child, unless they had political connections, gave them a problem, he was killed. Furthermore, almost of the children taken were as young as possible, so they that they wouldn't have memories of their original family and culture and have hate for their fellow Janissaries, for they would be more of a liability in battle than anything.

So again, they all Converted to Islam, not because it was against the law for a Christian to bear arms, but because they literally had no choice. They had to become a Janissary and all that goes with it, or die. --Xenophonos 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Xenophonos: First of all, assume good faith. This is lacking in the above paragraphs and essentially makes any and all communication worthless since you are not the judge nor the jury and I have absolutely no intention of trying to convince you (plural to boot...--whoever you are...) of anything.

Nor do I feel a need to apologize for citing Turkish sources. Just because a source is Turkish does not necessarily mean that it is biased, your prejudices are showing. FYI, there is usually a very easy method of checking whether or not a source is worthy: you check where it has been cited and there are many reference databases of this sort. If you are *seriously* concerned about the source, you would do this sort of check, which is well within means without speaking Turkish. That particular check would show you that this source is an overly dry compilation of primary source material.

Another point: I use citations -- since I think wiki needs facts, not my (or any other editor's) POV -- almost exclusively in every single edit I make, especially when correcting facts in stuff 4 centuries old, but still controversial. The entire history of the page is available. Have you checked? No. Instead you are assuming that all of the positive stuff is written by me and dependent on this particular book. If you can't be bothered to read the history of the page, I cannot see why you can be bothered to write a comment on the talk pages.

That particular sentence about Christian boys not expected to convert is wrong and it is not written by me. I had plans to change it once I had the time to check out references where I could cite page numbers. Seriously, your comment makes me wonder, "Why Bother???".

I seriously think that I deserve an apology. If you think I am not acting in good faith, prove it. --Free smyrnan 06:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited Popular Culture section

Added a video game featuring Jannisaries to the list, Medieval: Total War. Tias

[edit] NPOV

This article is total not NPOV. Ottoman Empire had no slaves. That is totally wrong in the Islam. The janissaries got better treatments then the Turks themselves. So how could you call em slaves? They werent supposed to do labour?.

This seems to be a matter of semantics. Slavery is not about doing labor or being well treated. Slavery is about being owned and being unable to choose one's destiny. Certainly there is a fine line between slavery, servitude, and serfdom (etc) but from what I see, the use of the term slavery is not NPOV given the source, characteristics, and use of these men. Note that this is not-withstanding the position of Islam, as we all know that individuals are subject to moments of weakness and may not reflect an ideal. InvictaHOG 04:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't try acting smart. I took History for 4 years and none of my professors ever said that Janissaries were slaves. For a fact, it used to be a personal insult to call an Ottoman man a slave owner. So how can you call the all-supreme Sultan a slave owner? And how is it that the Sultan trusted slaves to be by his side when they could just murder him on the spot? I request that we change this piece of the article.

Please try to refrain from appealing to authority. It's unclear how a perceived insult should change a historical perspective - sometimes the most bitter insults are those which strike truth. Calling the sultan a slave holder is no different from calling the all-supreme President Thomas Jefferson a slave holder and is not meant as insult, simply as an observation of fact. If you'd like to change the article, I'd invite you to provide well-respected references to the contrary. Also, I'd invite you to sign your comments with ~~~~ InvictaHOG 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel offended by such a statement, but it is historical fact that the Turkish/Muslim predecessors to the Ottomans, in their attacks and conquests of the Balkans throughout the Late Medieval and Early Modern period, kidnapped Christian children and raised them as Jannissaries, to fight for them against their own people. Just because you're being treated relatively well and not being forced to do fieldwork doesn't make you any less a slave. LordAmeth 18:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Sources

There was no source provided for the claim that many European Christians were pleased to have their children taken against their will and sent to the Janissaries, and that some actually paid to have this done. As it seems rather extreme and was uncited, I removed it. If somebody can offer legitimate citation then go ahead...

Thank you for removing it. The reason why it was uncited is because it was untrue. No one would pay to have their children taken away, to have the heirs of their family enslaved and indoctrinated in killing and to serve only the sultan. --Xenophonos 01:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources : MIchael Doukas : Byzantino - Turkish history

[edit] Spahis

I think that Spahis should be added in the "See also" section.

[edit] WP:MILHIST Assessment

A very nice start, with lots of pictures, and a wide coverage across the history of the Janissaries. Could use expansion, however, overall, and in particular in the introduction. Instead of simply saying what they were, include at least one sentence about their significance. LordAmeth 18:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to come up with a significance section. As far as I know, the janissaries were the only standing (permanent) army in the world at the time, a first since Roman times. Also, they were paid cash salary, again a first since Roman times and they long remained the only gov corps in the OE to receive cash payment. They were also a relatively early adopter of firearms and field artillery - I need to check whether they were the first or one of the early adopters. They also were the first to have a regular army band -- playing music before and during the battle. I'll try to substantiate these and come up with a section. --Free smyrnan 08:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Free smyrnan 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't Make Sense

This sentence elaborates on how, for Christians, becoming a Janissary was beneficial because:

"as this was one of the only ways for a Christian to advance in the Muslim Ottoman Empire, given their imposed dhimmi status"

It is false and paradoxical. How can a Christian attain a higher status if he was already forced to convert to Islam. Christians were forced to convert... and of course after converting to Islam, that person was no longer a Christian. This sentence has to be revised. --Xenophonos 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been bold and just excised the whole sentence until a citation can be provided. It's been long enough since the tag went up and it can easily be reinstated if a source is produced. InvictaHOG 02:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)