Talk:Devshirmeh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Devshirmeh article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	To-do list for Devshirmeh:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Is it true that the children would not be forced to convert to Islam? I was under the impression that they would be forced to convert. Indeed, if they were to serve in the military they must have been Muslims as Christians were prohibited from bearing arms in the Ottoman Empire. Does anyone have a source for this?

no need to force to convert to a religion becouse they are too young to be a member of one. So I think statement is true but misunderstandable.

the first writer is correnct. They were forced. It was effectively mass conversoin. They were obviously not to 'too young' as they were trained to fight. Through almost the whole history they couldnt carry weapons unless they Muslim.

Small number of Devshirme was used to fill Jannisaries. All of those those forced to convert. Jannisaris were all Moslem. There rest comprise infantry and certainly Devshirme was used to fill ranks of low value, high causualty rate troops.

On another note the conflation of Devsirme with Jannisary which one sees in the paragraphs in the article that begin with "Training of these acemi ocağı ..." and "Upon reaching adulthood, ..." create a very innacurate picture. The assertion that most or any but a tiny minority were trined in "calligraphy, theology, literature, law and languages"

is simply innacurate.

Also conversion was effectively forced as if done by the family before the annual "gathering" it exempted against Devshirme.

Also Murad I did not insttute the Devhirme simply because he needs more troops. He is the first Ottoman Sultan faced with such a large number of Christian subjects and this is a way to convert them or through battle loss alter the demographics. 72.75.23.3 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devshirmeh not only from Christian children

Very poor Muslim families in the Anatolia would see the devshirmeh as a means of saving their children from poverty. Such children would not forget their origins completely, and they might have supported their original families financially. I will write more details as soon as I find better resources on the topic. --C6H12O6 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No this should not have been added. Again it is a false identification of Jannisary with Devshirme. You are refering to the Jannisary corps. the phenomena of Moslem Turks being allowed to entering the Jannisaries is well know because it had a political effect. The corps were to have loyalty only to the Sultan. The introduction late of some children from Turkish families into Jannisaries created some otehr loyalties and problems with interference in the Sultinate. Again you are refering to Jannisary history not devshirme.22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Irrelevant" addition revert

Really? I find it very relevant! Especially to the definition of genocide which specifically states: "...and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I'll be re-adding this sentence, and expect better reasoning for its removal than the usual "the g-word is offensive for Turkish editors and it must be removed at all costs from all relevant articles". Had it been Greeks who were doing these disgusting practices, I would have been the first to add it, to help my compatriots learn from their ancestors' mistakes and become better. NikoSilver 17:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello guys, I think we should first discuss here before adding the word 'genocide', considering in middle ages many atrocities happened -ex. crusades - However, the definition of genocide has "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group ...". The Ottomans had no intention to wipe out Christians, but they asked for tax. Niko, "the g-word is offensive for Turkish editors and it must be removed at all costs from all relevant articles"; genocide is not offensive for me, since I am not a blind nationalist but a social democrat and love to discuss. However, Devshirmeh has nothing to do with systemical destruction of a nation; Ottomans needed loyal manpower and they used such a system. My personal view is that Devshirmeh system was ugly from the point of human rights. However, many ugly stuff happened in middle ages. From the administration side, it was a success though. Also, the system somehow provided semi-protection for Balkan people since Devshirmes knew that they came from Balkan Christians and therefore they tried to protect them through 15th and 16th centuries. After 16th century, muslims are allowed to join and whole system collapsed soon. To be honest, I am not happy what happened after 18th century in the empire far more than Devshirme case, since bad administration hurted many people in the empire including Balkans. Ottomans had many mistakes in fact... I don't touch the article now and hope to hear from you soon

• By the way, who added "This also has a basis in the Quran, surat 8, verse 41, which provides for the enlistment a fifth of the campaign captives."? because there is no such a verse telling enlistment of captives: "And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah - and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer" I don't touch it for a week, if no reply then I will modify..

Well, I like the way you put it. Can we please find a way to illustrate "ugly"? About "systematic", I'd say that this is the most systematic way for 3 reasons:

• It subtracts from the group its future (kids)
• It adds that future to another group
• It uses this addition to further subtract other lives of that group.

I agree that many ugly stuff happened back then, and I'm willing to help in further illustrating that uglyness wherever it is not. For your other questions, I've no idea. NikoSilver 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, good point:) Yes, it subtracts from one group and adds to another systematically, however this was done in small numbers (not all kids were taken, some of them were chosen) and with the intention to increase manpower supply, they didn't intend to destroy Balkan people, because they needed Balkans. In a way, it may look like vassals had to provide manpower at war. Though it was systematic, it lacked the intention to destroy the group. Otherwise, we would not expect to see many minor groups still exists in Balkans after a long 4 centuries Ottoman rule. At the end, the state was in need of soldiers and they used such a system that I find ugly.. However, if the real intention was to replace Balkan Christians by force then todays Balkans would look much different, as happened in Spain during 15th century(expulsion of Jews and Muslims by Inquisition) or in Ottoman Empire during 20th century (expulsion of Armenians)