France, england and many other colonial states forcefully recruited soldiar from africa, india and from many other regions. Even today, US, France, Russia has been using convicts to fight in distart battlefields..In middle ages, serbs were owner by the lord and they were forcefully enlisted for the war of the nobility. Ottomans as always did this more humanly acconding to that time. Ottomans saw themselves as the contniuation of Roman Empire.
Abducting children never to see their families again, torturing them, force-converting them to islam and killing or selling as common slaves those who resisted... yeah... very humane. Also if you are to accuse Europeans of ""force recruiting soldiers from Africa and India" you need to be more specific. All colonial troops were volunteers for the pay, Europeans did not force-recruit like Ottomans did. Also you as a Turk, from a country which officially back islamic terrorism and utilizes islamic terrorists as an arm of the Turkish military is kinda "rich" to accuse Europeans of employing convicts as mercenaries.
I am Turkish. Really it is very rare to see a non biased content. As the appointed antagonists. We got used to it. If you want to Turkish historians can support you on many topics. Greek 200 years of indoctrination changed their perception of the Turk's. Wish you success on your path. Let me know if it's suit you. Regards.
Well Greeks always did that thing. As an Albanian, most of Northern Greek territories were Albanian lands yet they claim it's their. Not long ago in 1957 they did a genocide against Çam people in Çamëria and none talked about it back then because it's Greece, an "old civilization" with stolen history. I mean, what can you expect from pagans who worship anything but God.
Why dont you ask him to create a version for the Armenian gen0cide as well? Unfortunately for him most people know how to use this thing called "Google" to get answers.
@@history_repeats8201 Are you talking about the Armenian g3nocide meme on the internet? There are many videos about this. I didn't understand the connection with the Janissaries. Instead, he might want a version about the Turkish g3nocide by Armenians.
@ The Janissary force was formed in the fourteenth century, either during the rule of Murad I (r. 1362-1389), the third sultan of the Ottoman Empire,[13] or during the time of Murad's father, Sultan Orhan (r. c. 1324 - 1362).[14] The Ottoman Turks instituted a tax of one-fifth on all SLAVES taken in war, and from this pool of manpower the sultans first constructed the Janissary corps as a personal army loyal only to the Ottoman sultan.[15] The history of slavery in the Muslim world was throughout the history of Islam with slaves serving in various social and economic roles, from powerful emirs to harshly treated manual laborers. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, and animal husbandry, but most commonly as soldiers, guards, domestic workers,[1] and concubines (sex slaves).[2] The use of slaves for hard physical labor early on in Muslim history led to several destructive slave revolts,[1] the most notable being the Zanj Rebellion of 869-883, and led to the end of the practice.[3] Many rulers also used slaves in the military and administration to such an extent that slaves could seize power, as did the Mamluks.[1] Most slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world.[4] Slavery in Islamic law does have a religious and not racial foundation in principle, although this was not always the case in practise.[5] The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa (Trans-Saharan slave trade), and Southeast Africa (Red Sea slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade), and rough estimates place the number of Africans enslaved in the twelve centuries prior to the 20th century at between six million and ten million.[6][7][8][9][10] The Ottoman slave trade came from raids into eastern and central Europe and the Caucasus connected to the Crimean slave trade, while slave traders from the Barbary Coast raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and as far afield as the British Isles and Iceland. Historically, the Muslim Middle East was more or less united for many centuries, and slavery was hence reflected in the institution of slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661), slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate (661-750), slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258), slavery in the Mamluk Sultanate (1258-1517) and slavery in the Ottoman Empire (1517-1922), before slavery was finally abolished in one Muslim country after another during the 20th century. In the 20th century, the authorities in Muslim states gradually outlawed and suppressed slavery, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[11] Slavery in Zanzibar was abolished in 1909, when slave concubines were freed, and the open slave market in Morocco was closed in 1922. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924 when the new Turkish Constitution disbanded the Imperial Harem and made the last concubines and eunuchs free citizens of the newly proclaimed republic.[12] Slavery in Iran and slavery in Jordan was abolished in 1929. In the Persian Gulf, slavery in Bahrain was first to be abolished in 1937, followed by slavery in Kuwait in 1949 and slavery in Qatar in 1952, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962,[13] and Oman followed in 1970. Mauritania became the last state to abolish slavery, in 1981. In 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam declared that "no one has the right to enslave" another human being.[14] As of 2001, however, instances of modern slavery persisted in areas of the Sahel,[15][16] and several 21st-century terroristic jihadist groups have attempted to use historic slavery in the Muslim world as a pretext for reviving slavery in the 21st century. The recent phenomena of taking Yazidi women as slaves is proof that while the rest of the world has progressed Islam has remain a regressive religion that refuses to "enlighten" its followers.
there were a lot of non turkish people involved in this dynasty, it's there for more correct to say "turkish speaking". For example the emperors almost never had ethnically turkish wives, that also means almost never had turkish mothers. no need to get nationalistic here as well.
The guy is not a historian. He is a leftist propagandist. Leftists, the same people who push for... LGtv agendas push also for the whitewashing of islamic/ottoman slave trade and child abduction.
"The Ottomans were more tolerant to peasantry than the Christian Feudal lords and the church. That's why the Ottoman expansion in the Balkans was relatively fast and durable." Prof. Halil İnalcık, Harvard.
Turkish biased historian. And the conquest of the balkans was not fast at all. took over 200 years to get far into the balkans with huge resistance, Skanderbeg, Lazar, Vlad Tepes, Hunyadi, and others were leaders of balkan states who gave the ottomans hell.
As a Turkish person, thanks for bringing this up. I need to add the note that Greece, Bulgaria, Serbians, Romania, Hungaria etc built their modern nationalism based on anti-Turkish sentiment and manufacturing propaganda all the time. Their profitable political standpoint relies on EU's Turkish hate. Otherwise none of those countries are valid option for any type of modern industrial-military alliance. I'm not gonna be one-sided and of course Islamists like Erdogan, who is ethnic Georgian who is enemy Turkish secularism and nationalism, contribute significantly for many Christian people's to build biases. I'm also not going to skip Germany's effort to make Turkey look like a Afghanistan in the mass media. Their stiftungs openly against Turkish secularism-nationalism aka Kemalism from the start. Thanks again.
I dont know why you are thinking so. Erdogan in 2020 July recitation in Ayasofia is a fact. If you presidant did that now in XXI ( with invitation to all muslim word to participate ) , I can imagine what was in XVI century under sultans and imams dreeming for conquest of second and first Roma. By the way internet is full with imams speaking such a things... Sorry for my bad english, I know some turkish, in the past to XIX century , we have not problem with language but with ottoman religios discremination against all non muslims The opresion and invasion to Viena is a fact. Of course your relation with greeks are very specific. Because of 1453 , long border etc, losana etc. Our are maybe more simple to be understand. But even we as bulgarians have some other specifities that are connected with Ottomans in the past. And no way to say to ok to istorical facts as devsime, gazavat agaist Europe, muslim piratry in sea, enslavement of milions people in present day Ukraine and South Russia by incursions. We must to know that this oppersions had many victims, and we venerate suference of every man or woman. So bulgar - byzantin wars as example are fact and have no sympathy to " our side" . Because after ottomans we know that only the acceptance of some basic Truth is our real "side " and way to be better. But after Erdogan religious based politics, as examples 2020 or , jihadists that Turkye a deceny was sending to Syria all about is clear. Biz komsu ulkeiyz, ama tarihimizin olaylarin degerlendirmek kendimizinm vazifemiz. Goreviniz arasinda bir Justinianusun kilise iki kere cami yapmak varsa ...gider cogunlukta hristiyan ulkeler birlikte, ortak gorusler varsa hic sasirmayin !
Erdogan is not ethnically Georgian, his father was Greek, his village is a Pontic Greek village, called Potamia (riverside in Greek), where half of the inhabitants were slaughtered including the grandfather of Erdogan and the other half were forced converted to islam (one such family took under their wings Erdogan's father, who also converted to Islam). Now think about it. All these people Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians, Romanians, Hungarians, Armenians note the exact same thing about Turks. These are nations that were not friendly to each other, they had their antagonisms, they certainly never rebelled together against the Ottomans but each on their own, thus there is absolutely no basis for them to have had conspired to write lies about the Ottomans. The fact of the matter is that all these people were writing the exact same things about the Turks, each in his own place, each in his own language. You coming here to call all these people "liars" is truly "rich".
Why is nationalism so important for you? You do realize that turkey has annexed Kurdish and Laz people after the end of WWI right? How can you be nationalist without enforcing brutal assimilation policies if you annex other people's lands?
@@Fokas-n8t 1) Erdogan told himself he is ethnic Georgian. So I don't know what to tell. 2) Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians, Romanians, Armenians were built their "nationality" based on anti-Turkish sentiment which powers like especially Britain and then Russians, France, German countries used it against Ottomans to make minorities rebel. So today's hatred against Turks are result of at least 200 years of anti-Turkish sentiment to weaken Ottomans, which actually has a long history till first crusade. Especially Greeks and Bulgarians' nationalism completely written to be against Turks. Today's Greece is found by Britain and German royalties to start. Their kings were German, their political and military advisors were Great Britain. Bulgarians are heavily effected by Pan-Slavic unity propaganda from Russia, especially from Russian Orthodox church. 3) Thinking Ottoman was being mean only non-Muslims is hilarious. Many times Ottoman Sultans used devshirme pashas, and mercenaries from Serbia, Hungaria troops to massacre Turkish rebellions in Balkans, Anatolia and today's Syria and Egypt. Because Turkish soldiers would not do the same. Addtionally, at the beginning of 19th century, dehumanisation of Turks, massacring Turks were ok in every possible way. And that's what Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians and Russians did. In the Balkans, in 100 years duration around 5.5 millions Turks, which includes also Bosnians, Albanians and Bulgarian ethnics are massacred. The biggest and longest genocide of the history. Not to mention, Greeks massacred only 640 thousands people when they enter Anatolia in Greco-Turkish war. This number is excluded from Balkan genocide. So when I see a Greek and Bulgarian complains about how cruel Turks were, I laugh. We didn't take our revenge yet.
Thank you so much for creating this fascinating video on the Janissaries and their unique recruitment system. Your exploration of the topic through historical perspectives, especially from non-Muslim, non-Turkish, Western historians, provides a nuanced understanding that encourages deeper thought. It's a refreshing reminder to approach history with care and context, avoiding surface-level judgments. I truly appreciate the effort you put into shedding light on this complex and intriguing part of Ottoman history!
It is clearly shows that Ottomans are not haters of other religions. They dont abuse, oppress or torture these kids, contrary they respect, nurture and educate them to become the greatest minds of the empire. Imagine that Ottoman Sultan is marrying his daughter to one of the Jennisarrys, isnt it enough evidence? Thanks for great video
I loved your way of telling history. A master of mine used to say: History is not knowing cases. It is problem solving. You fit right into this. I wish you continued success.
Exceptional video; you have won my subscription. As a Turk who has emigrated to Europe, I realised how similar devşirme system was to the modern concept of brain drain. Now obviously what made me leave Turkey was not a forced tithe, but out of social and economic pressures. It was clear to me and my family that someone of my skills and principles would become more successful and live a better life (at least for the time being) in Europe. My families support in this process has parallels to families in the Balkans who would (allegedly) willingly hand over their children to the devşirme system. I even see parallels in how contemporary people respond to people such as myself and the larger trend of brain drain. Some decry it a betrayal on the part of those who are leaving, some label it a theft of Turkey's youth by the imperialist(/insert other slogan here) western powers. Yet some others look at it more positively; there are those who say the system will benefit Turkey by way of the material capital, knowledge or experience that some of those "brain drainers" will at some point bring back with them. I of course have not covered all viewpoints on the matter and will not share mine, but hopefully the sheer parallel between today's brain drain and the devşirme system.
You had a choice. You could have stayed in Turkey and collected hazelnuts and bless Erdogan's balls for living. The Christians of the Balkans didnt have a chance. They were Slaves
@@Пальцерезка Did you revert to christianity? Have you ever read bible from beginning to the end? Did you embrace eastern european values_?? I don't think so, if you quit rage and say yes! i am a christian and i read bible, i would like to ask do you fast like a true christian.?_ Do you pray? Do you read bible daily? Come one you have no difference with the Turkish dude who migrated to Germany, if your imagination of being "christian" is eating pork don't worry alot of turks are doing that too, so good morning friend, isn't it your time to convert to Christianity too_???
The term kidnap is western propaganda. The word is either forcefull or willing recruitment of some christians into janissary corps depending on number male children. Conscription is not kidnapping.
The Janissary force was formed in the fourteenth century, either during the rule of Murad I (r. 1362-1389), the third sultan of the Ottoman Empire,[13] or during the time of Murad's father, Sultan Orhan (r. c. 1324 - 1362).[14] The Ottoman Turks instituted a tax of one-fifth on all SLAVES taken in war, and from this pool of manpower the sultans first constructed the Janissary corps as a personal army loyal only to the Ottoman sultan.[15] The history of slavery in the Muslim world was throughout the history of Islam with slaves serving in various social and economic roles, from powerful emirs to harshly treated manual laborers. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, and animal husbandry, but most commonly as soldiers, guards, domestic workers,[1] and concubines (sex slaves).[2] The use of slaves for hard physical labor early on in Muslim history led to several destructive slave revolts,[1] the most notable being the Zanj Rebellion of 869-883, and led to the end of the practice.[3] Many rulers also used slaves in the military and administration to such an extent that slaves could seize power, as did the Mamluks.[1] Most slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world.[4] Slavery in Islamic law does have a religious and not racial foundation in principle, although this was not always the case in practise.[5] The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa (Trans-Saharan slave trade), and Southeast Africa (Red Sea slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade), and rough estimates place the number of Africans enslaved in the twelve centuries prior to the 20th century at between six million and ten million.[6][7][8][9][10] The Ottoman slave trade came from raids into eastern and central Europe and the Caucasus connected to the Crimean slave trade, while slave traders from the Barbary Coast raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and as far afield as the British Isles and Iceland. Historically, the Muslim Middle East was more or less united for many centuries, and slavery was hence reflected in the institution of slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661), slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate (661-750), slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258), slavery in the Mamluk Sultanate (1258-1517) and slavery in the Ottoman Empire (1517-1922), before slavery was finally abolished in one Muslim country after another during the 20th century. In the 20th century, the authorities in Muslim states gradually outlawed and suppressed slavery, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[11] Slavery in Zanzibar was abolished in 1909, when slave concubines were freed, and the open slave market in Morocco was closed in 1922. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924 when the new Turkish Constitution disbanded the Imperial Harem and made the last concubines and eunuchs free citizens of the newly proclaimed republic.[12] Slavery in Iran and slavery in Jordan was abolished in 1929. In the Persian Gulf, slavery in Bahrain was first to be abolished in 1937, followed by slavery in Kuwait in 1949 and slavery in Qatar in 1952, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962,[13] and Oman followed in 1970. Mauritania became the last state to abolish slavery, in 1981. In 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam declared that "no one has the right to enslave" another human being.[14] As of 2001, however, instances of modern slavery persisted in areas of the Sahel,[15][16] and several 21st-century terroristic jihadist groups have attempted to use historic slavery in the Muslim world as a pretext for reviving slavery in the 21st century. The recent phenomena of taking Yazidi women as slaves is proof that while the rest of the world has progressed Islam has remain a regressive religion that refuses to "enlighten" its followers.
I've been thinking about this topic on and off for, well, years now, and I have a few things on my mind (I'm not a historian, I'm just generally curious): 1) You're talking about a period of 400+ years and a huge geography. During this period the perception of both the people who were ruled and the people who ruled them changed drastically. So I expect different actions, reactions (and sentiments) at diffferent regions and time periods of the Ottoman empire. 2) My impression is that Ottomans were not simply evil or good, they were mostly pragmatic, so indifferent. I expect that they used whichever method was more efficient for them at the time: "Bribe them if you can, force them if you must" maybe. It wasn't about "what's good for people", it was about "what's good for the empire" (empire being the Ottoman family, of course). So probably a more suitable question is: "Is there any region or time period that these two aligned?". 3) Earliest sources about this topic are (mostly) written after the disbandment of the janissaries. In Constantinople, Sultan Mahmut burned down every document he could think of related to janisseries (even the music sheets), and in Europe various conflicts probably destroyed any possible contemporary accounts about the practice. Secondary documents from the Ottoman archives, like financial documents, court proceedings, or property surveys, might give clues about the Ottoman perception. As for people's perception, I have no idea where to find written accounts (or even if they exist), but I'm curious if some of the loan words from Turkish can tell a part of the story (Like, I think in Ukranian(?) the word "janissary" or "jannisar" means traitor (or samething like that), so I wonder how and when that came to be). 4) All of the above points are written by dry academic curiosity, without any regard to ethical concerns. And I gotta be honest, if you bring back ethics to the table, the whole practice looks horrific, regardless of the circumstances, or who benefited in which way. So, maybe it wasn't that bad, or maybe it was. But eventually, it WAS a bad practice and harmed all parties. So maybe don't lock up the ethics entirely for the sake of academics?
The Ottoman Empire collected the "Cizye" tax from its Christian subjects. This was equivalent to 30% of all income that year. However, those who could not pay this, would have one of their male children, who were over 7 but not over 20, educated at a school called "Enderun" and trained to employ them in government positions. The "Enderun" school is the most beautiful and magnificent building of the Topkapi Palace. There, children from Rumelia and Crimea received the best education of the age with opportunities they could not even dream of. A maximum of 10 out of every 100 children were taken into the Janissary Corps if they were capable of fighting. The children would grow up with other male children in wealthy Turkish families. TURKS VERY IMPORTANTLY APPRECIATED THESE CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY WERE SEEN AS A KIND OF ORPHAN AND THE CONCEPT OF ORPHAN IS VERY IMPORTANT IN TURKISH CULTURE. THE PUNISHMENT FOR BEATING AN ORPHAN AND BEING INJUSTICE TO THEM WAS DEATH! ISLAM ALSO CONDEMNS DISCRIMINATION AND INJUSTICE TOWARDS CHILDREN WITHOUT PARENTS. THIS IS AN UNPARTICULAR SIN! NO CHILD WAS EVER EVER MIStreated IN THE SAME WAY! IN ADDITION, WHEN THESE CHILDREN BECAME ADULTS, THEY WOULD BE OF GREAT HELP TO THEIR REAL FAMILIES AND THEIR COUNTRIES! THE TURKISH EMPIRE ALSO REJECTED THE AFRICAN SLAVERY SYSTEM AND BEING A SLAVE OWNER WAS NOT WELCOMED AMONG THE TURKS! EACH COMMUNITY WAS FREE TO LIVE THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND RELIGION! EVEN THE CENTER OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES, THE PATRIARCHATE, IS IN ISTANBUL TODAY AND IS OPEN TO WORSHIP!
Wow... You, sir, a truly unique gem. Thanks for that! In a world that titles were hereditary and rising was a threat to status quo, Janissary system were the ''evil'' since they were rising according to their merits, relatively.
Thank you for actually going into detail and being unbiased. Most history channels on TH-cam usually confuse it as chattel slavery or simplify it as Blood Tax.
if you recruit administrator from alien state, they are less likely to do nepotism vs the native citizen simply because they don't have family/connection in close proximity
You have touched on a very good point, in fact, the original reason why the Ottomans used this system intensively was the fear of a Turkish or Muslim family gaining power and seizing the throne. For this reason, Muslim Turkish families were kept away from trade and were generally directed to the agricultural sector in the countryside, and in the last period of the Ottoman Empire, the groups with power were always non-Muslim minorities and the Turks were the poor majority.
Main reason is Ottoman empire used mostly soft power and states governed internally so there wasnt any reason to force for anything. Breaking is not the point bending slightly to have common ground is the point. The time Ottoman empire lost its soft power and reached logictic max it started to get stagnate eventually collapse. Our soft power mainly gone away due to raising of nationality with French revulution and corruption. Ottomans and eventualy people on Turkey has increadibly varried dnas due to soft power dynamics (people tend to marry each other when you dont discriminate shocker I know.) and non nationality based governence people mixed together and assimilated into the culture they created together so nationality effected us a lot. We still have that ambigious relationship ethnic stuff it is akin to a religion(I am not talking about Islam btw) rather than a dna based ethnicity. So if you say Turkish you are Turkish I see from your face that you are not Turkish but in 2nd generation mixed with us that would mean nothing. Even if you dont have one percent blood of us it is a pride to have different people in our name.
16:00 Slight correction: I am not claiming that this bridge and the Pasha Qasim Mosque is designed by Sinan. The Sulaymiyya mosque is, however, these other buildings are just general representations of roads and mosques in the Ottoman empire to give some visual representation to the concept of Ottoman road and bridge construction etc.
How can you cover the subject without going to the origins of the formation of the Janissaries'? I guess it wasn't convenient to your objective? The Janissary force was formed in the fourteenth century, either during the rule of Murad I (r. 1362-1389), the third sultan of the Ottoman Empire,[13] or during the time of Murad's father, Sultan Orhan (r. c. 1324 - 1362).[14] The Ottoman Turks instituted a tax of one-fifth on all SLAVES taken in war, and from this pool of manpower the sultans first constructed the Janissary corps as a personal army loyal only to the Ottoman sultan.[15] The history of slavery in the Muslim world was throughout the history of Islam with slaves serving in various social and economic roles, from powerful emirs to harshly treated manual laborers. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, and animal husbandry, but most commonly as soldiers, guards, domestic workers,[1] and concubines (sex slaves).[2] The use of slaves for hard physical labor early on in Muslim history led to several destructive slave revolts,[1] the most notable being the Zanj Rebellion of 869-883, and led to the end of the practice.[3] Many rulers also used slaves in the military and administration to such an extent that slaves could seize power, as did the Mamluks.[1] Most slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world.[4] Slavery in Islamic law does have a religious and not racial foundation in principle, although this was not always the case in practise.[5] The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa (Trans-Saharan slave trade), and Southeast Africa (Red Sea slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade), and rough estimates place the number of Africans enslaved in the twelve centuries prior to the 20th century at between six million and ten million.[6][7][8][9][10] The Ottoman slave trade came from raids into eastern and central Europe and the Caucasus connected to the Crimean slave trade, while slave traders from the Barbary Coast raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and as far afield as the British Isles and Iceland. Historically, the Muslim Middle East was more or less united for many centuries, and slavery was hence reflected in the institution of slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661), slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate (661-750), slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258), slavery in the Mamluk Sultanate (1258-1517) and slavery in the Ottoman Empire (1517-1922), before slavery was finally abolished in one Muslim country after another during the 20th century. In the 20th century, the authorities in Muslim states gradually outlawed and suppressed slavery, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[11] Slavery in Zanzibar was abolished in 1909, when slave concubines were freed, and the open slave market in Morocco was closed in 1922. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924 when the new Turkish Constitution disbanded the Imperial Harem and made the last concubines and eunuchs free citizens of the newly proclaimed republic.[12] Slavery in Iran and slavery in Jordan was abolished in 1929. In the Persian Gulf, slavery in Bahrain was first to be abolished in 1937, followed by slavery in Kuwait in 1949 and slavery in Qatar in 1952, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962,[13] and Oman followed in 1970. Mauritania became the last state to abolish slavery, in 1981. In 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam declared that "no one has the right to enslave" another human being.[14] As of 2001, however, instances of modern slavery persisted in areas of the Sahel,[15][16] and several 21st-century terroristic jihadist groups have attempted to use historic slavery in the Muslim world as a pretext for reviving slavery in the 21st century. The recent phenomena of taking Yazidi women as slaves is proof that while the rest of the world has progressed Islam has remain a regressive religion that refuses to "enlighten" its followers.
In year 2025 give the right to a poor european guy's family to (lets say) Being a prime minister of United Arab Emirates at Dubai to ride Lamborghini's Fly with Jets, and have 4 young beautiful Girlfriends, plus tens or hundreds of houses and unlimited supply of wage, i believe WHOLE of the europe, even the richest of the rich would want to live the life as a muslim in the UAE, that's how it was in Ottoman to be a Jannisarry
Hi, greetings from Turkey. Liked your approach and narrative very much. Since this is just a comment, not an article :) I shall give the very basic insight to the topic by oversimplifying :), my apologies. Ottoman Empire could be considered as Turkic - just may be - in the times of establishment. Specially after conquering Istanbul, the empire considered itself as succesor of Byzantine. The administrators, burocrats, high rank commanders or any important position you would look was filled by either janissaries or by ethnic Greek, Armanian, Serbian, Bosnian or whatever nation you could count to be under Ottoman rule. I go furthermore, all of important structures, most of the investments were in European part of the empire. Actually thats the result of all hişgh rank administrators being from those regions. And I think this begs the question "why" in your mind :) Well it is simple. You just go back in the time, the establishment era of the empire, and a little bit further back. The Grand Seljuk Empire was divided in to pieces, and Anatolian Seljuk Empire was one of those parts. Things were okay for a while. And by the way, The Anatolian Seljuk Empire is the last real Turkic Empire in the history. The capital of this empire was Konya (its where I live). And the the mongols came. Invaded Anatolia, looted, and went back. While they leave, they divide the peninsula in to small states called "bejlik" (comes from "beylik", the root "bey" means kind of powerfull man simply and is being used as exact translation of Mr. in present day) These bejliks were simply small states ruled by one powerfull family of the region. And the Ottoman family was one of these bejliks located in the further end of peninsula, sharing direct border with Byzantine. While other bejliks compete and even fight with each other (this was the reason mongols established such a structure) the small bejlik of Ottoman prefered to take small bites from Byzantine soils - either by fighting, or supporting one Byzantine governor against other one. As the time goes by, Ottomans gain a lot of land in Europe, which they use it as a jumping point in further Europe, to Balcans. In the meantime, they had some clashes with other bejliks, but usually avoid big fights. And at the times, there was the question of "who shall be the bejlik to collect all the ruling power over other bejliks and unify them. After conquering of İstanbul, Sultan Mehmed II turned his eyes to Anatolia, and simply answered the question - by overtaking other bejliks one by one. I am so sorry but this was only the context to the answer of my first question 😅Dont worry, rest is short. After completely taking over Anatolia, Ottoman Sultans never allowed any Turk in the administration, never married Turkish women. Because they had the fear of any high rank Turk would claim the throne with their roots and family rights coming from the bejlik times. They administrated Anatolia very different from other parts of the Empire. Never invested much, never allowed any family to get too rich or strong. Didnt establish education, healthcare and commercial instutions. Instead, high rank administrators came from "devshirme", who dont have long and strong family roots, who actually were nothing. They all got Ottoman names (not Turkic), all got Ottoman cultural identity, but they all knew themselves and others were children of phesants once upon a time. And this intended sellection of pheasant boys to be important soldiers and intentionally keeping Anatolia poor and uncivilised policy became the core of Ottoman identity. The more devshirme came to important positions, more they invested in Europe, left Anatolia and Turks unattended. If today, you could take DNA's from Sultans specially after Mehmed II, you wouldnt find a single drop of Turkish blood. As I told, Sultans breeded - nearly - only non Turkic women. A language was formed around the palace and administration called Ottoman Language, which was simply overcomplicating simple Turkish with Arabic and Persian. Only elites were to speak and wright in this language. So, may be in the beginig, some boys were taken by force to be trained as soldiers, later it became something favored among European nations under Ottoman rule, since the Turks were intentionaly being kept away from the center. I am finishing my ridiculously long "comment" with the result and effects of this policy. The nationalism movement began and all these European nations tear themself apart from the empire and started with well structures, rich economy, clean and nice organised cities while Turkey had to establish itself on poor, un-invested, poorly structured Anatolia with uneducated, unhealthy, sick and criple pheasant people whose most sons were died to defend the parts of the empire which they couldnt imagine - let alone know - even exist. All because the fear of losing the throne to another Turkish dinesty. I want people just to ask this question to themselves while judging Ottoman Empire. What language is spoken in all these countries? Which religion is dominant? Which culture they live their lives, even from the begining of their independence from Ottoman Empire. Greece was under Ottoman rule for 400 years. Four-HUndred-Years...! If Ottoman Empire was an oppressionist monster, could any christian remain and deliver their religion to next generations? Could they even remember what was greek language was? Same question for all nations such else Romanians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Serbians, Croatians and many more.. I advise people to go visit Algeria - speaking Arabic or Berberi (their native language) can only cause trouble. A clear French though, opens many doors as a tourist. I am shutting th f up, my apologies, and greetings!
If you mean “Ottomans kidnapped” The answer is NO, they didn’t kidnapped, They took them and also some of them joined to Ottomans willingly also done by their parents as well. Note: Ottomans were NOT Turks.! I am a Turk..
Another point to add: It wasn't easy to be drafted into the Janissary Corps. You had to fulfill certain criteria in order to be eligible for recruitment. The recruiters were looking for traits such as strength, eye sight or riding skills etc. The nationalistc Revisionist paint a caricature of barbaric turks entering a slavic village and pillaging younglings left and right which couldn't be further from the truth. The proper term to describe process of devshirme would be that of a 'draft board'.
Also they have to have a brother, even a child that checks all the boxes of what Janissaries are looking, if he's a single child he wouldn't be taken into the Devshirme system.
Thank you for the video! As a Turk, I always thought that all the drama about Janissaries was overblown. To me, they always seemed like your run-of-the-mill, maybe slightly elite, imperial standing army.
Currently, all across the geography known as europe, there are over 5000 stone inscriptions which can only be deciphered by ancient Turk language, and by no other language/s. These stone inscriptions are located all across west, north, central and east europe. The people we known in modernity as 'european' are actually people who came from around where India is. Scientists suggest that the migration of people into north america and from there to central and south america occured not only thru the Bearing Bridge (when the strait was a land mass), but also with sea vessels from the shores of what we now know as France into north americas since past 40,000 years much before the ''europeans'' came from around India. The aboriginal people of the reigions we currently know as europe and asia, that is eurasia were the ancestors of modern day Turks (''Turks'' not only as in the inhabitants of Turkish Republic, but all other Turk people across vast geography). The people we know as ''european'' are late comers into the region, killing off and assimilating the local populations. For example the governments of Sweden even until the 1980's, (yes 1980's not 1880's) had a state policy to forcible have indegineous female population surgically mutilated so not to be able to get pregnant, preventing the indegineous population to protect it self. The Roman Empire are took most of it's sciences, arts and state governnance laws from the Etrcuscans, who even the modern day europeans admit are people akin with the central asian people, basically they are camoflaging the fact that they are one of the ancestors of modern day Turks. Likewise many other indegineous populations of what is now know as eurasia are actually ancestors of Turks and when comparing and studying the languages we find the connection. Certainly they did not speak ''modern Turkish'' as spoken in the Republic of Turkiye, but you can clearly see the language evolving into what it has become. Of course to know all this one needs to steer away from ''his-story'' and dewelve in 'history''. Best wishes.
Here's something off topic that you may find interesting. :) The name of my country has nothing to do with the interesting and delicious bird 'turkey'...... .....but the name of the bird does have a connection with the name of my country, let me explain. :) In the past 40 years 37 countries have changed their name, partially or fully. Obviously one can not change the name of an apple or an orange etc in other languages, but country names are like peoples' individual names, so if you're named John we don't call you Karen. :) Name of my country has always been Türkiye, it's been known as such since around the 1200's, many times presented as 'Turkiye' in various maps and memoirs by western travellers and cartographers. The name it self has a suffix, '-iye', that is Turk-iye, where the -iye suffix means 'land of/belonging to', this is just like the Latin suffix of '-ia', which exists in such country names like Austr-ia, Austral-ia, Indones-ia etc. The Latin suffix -ia probably originates from Turkish -iye as Turkish been over 10,000 years is much older than Latin which is around 2300 years old with proto-Latin stretching back about 2700 years.. Many would remember the country Czechoslovak-ia which (changed names and) became Slovak-ia and Czech Republic and a few years ago changed that to Czechia (that is Czech-ia). The use of '-iye/-ia' is the same as the the use of '-land' suffix that comes after various country names like Ire(Eire)-land, Po(le)-land, Eng(Anglo)-land and so on and so on, so ''-ia/iye'' is the same '-land'' Spelled in different languages in different ways to phonetically RESEMBLE (to sound like) 'Türkiye', in time we got; Turq-uía (in Spanish), Turch-ia (in Italian), Turq-uie (in French) Turk-ei (in German) Turk-ey (in English) All trying to resemble/sound like the word ''Türk-iye''. Mind you this was way before the animal we currently know as turkey was found by the europeans when they explored the north americas. The bird was first sent to europe from north americas in the year 1519, so up until that point there was no bird named by white people as turkey.... ...during their exploration/invasion of north americas, they came across the bird and thought it was a specie of the fowl/chicken they had been buying from the country of Turkiye (as imperial europeans and Türkiye existed at the time formally known as Ottoman State, but collogially it was ''Türkiye'' as present in various historic documents/maps etc, meaning ''land of the Turks''), so they named the bird 'Turkey Fowl' to define 'Turkish Chicken'... ....just like how a dog breed is known as German Shepherd (because it's from Germany), American Bulldog, British Terrier, Greek Harehound etc etc. In time you don't get to call the harehound simply as Greek or you don't call the terrier Britirsh, or shepherd as simply German, but in time the Turkish Fowl started to be called just 'Turkey' and later 'turkey', and this went on for hundreds of years. Now in modern times, this caused confusion, especially when we have people across the world unable to point to their own country on an atlas. Basically we didn't change the name of our country, we changed the mistake made in the English language. : ) So, there's some tid bit information for you to have a great day, if you read upto this point you have a great night too, ohh just have a wonderfull life. : ) Best wishes. ;)
Ottoman beylik and state was Türk. When it turned in to empire the ruling elites and their army of bodyguards were not Türk anymore. The Sultans and their families were converts themselves. They looked down at Türks and did massacres to Türks. Anything you will put responsibility put it to those convert palace people. Not to Türk commoners who suffered alot becasue of those converts at farmlands and battlefields, losing their lives.
THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF DEVŞİRME SYSTEM WAS ABOUT THE FEAR OF TURKS CHALLENGING THEIR ABSOLUTE POWER. TURKS IN THEIR HISTORY WERE RULED BY A LEADER WHO CONSULTED THE ELDERS COMITTEE. KEEPING THE TURKS AT A BAY THEY SUCCEEDED IN HAVING ABSOLUTE POWER. IN THE END TURKS HAD THE LAST WORD.
@@commenterthe3rd I BEG TO DIFFER. THEIR DOWNFALL WAS BECAUSE THEY ALMOST SUCCEDED IN MARGINALISING THE TURKS, AND THEY HAD NO DEFENDERS ANY MORE. AND THEY LOST TO THE TURKS.
reducing conscription -albeit still horrid- to "kidnapping" is how some people try to show the devshirme as more evil than it is. This is a deliberate word-replacement.
Not some, about 20 Grand vezirs were "Devsirme" (localised/switched is the correct translation), almost all admirals were so! The Ottomans took this system from the Roman empire and perfected it essentially. The US is doing the same today, it was the only system offering people of merit the opportunity to vertical ascension into social classes while European kingdoms were strictly feudal! Not to mention the Janissaries were so powerful that they toppled (and even allegedly killed one) sultans! which led to their abolition eventually. So pretty much everything modern people know about the system is faar from truth! Pretty much all those devsirme pashas were married to royal princesses, so a poor villagers child from the balkans had the opportunity to become aristocrats and benefit their hometowns with their power which they ultimately did!! Even today, Serbs can't be called Turcophiles, but go to the town of Sokol and see how they are revered!!
Btw, my favourite grand vezir who was a devsirme is "Scipione of Cigala", who took the muslim name Yusuf Sinan pasha, the famous district "Cagaloglu" in old town istanbul has been named after him..His life story is the real "Count of Montecristo" ! They should definitely make a movie about him..
The Albanians lands are divided by the "Treaty Peace of London" in 1913. Kosovo, Shkupi, Manastir, Chameria, Presheva, Malesia, Pazar I Ri are some Albanians territories outside todays Albania. PRIZREN LEAGUE Albanian unity 1878, after Nish given to ser*a cause Rusia war defeat
Brilliant idea, lets bring back the sultan and crown you as the grand vizier right away. A Norwegian leading a janissary corps - that would be a nice time to be alive! But jokes aside, thank you for your imput on this topic, i enjoyed watching it!
Many Turkic states established in Central Asia and the Middle East did not last long after the death of their leaders due to the sharing of lands among their children or the capture of the state by other nobles. The Ottoman Empire solved these problems by fratricide and by not allowing a noble class around it. For this reason, the janissaries were forbidden to marry and to engage in any work other than military service, and in the empire there was no noble class such as lords and counts as in European states, there was only the Sultan and those who served him.
Incredibly well done research and video. Kudos. Unfortunately no amount of high quality research stating facts can overcome the immense hate towards the empire and the Turks.
From what the Turkish Education System has taught me, I can say that: Young Christian children are taken from their families and taught at "Enderun Mektebi", an elite school in the Ottoman Empire. Since people who studied at "Enderun Mektebi" could reach important positions such as vizier, prosecutor, and janissary in the Ottoman Empire, Christian families are positive about this issue. And there is no such thing as taking children without their parents' approval. (I didn't watch the video so don't kill me) I'm just saying.
as a Turk, as you say its complicated topic but in the short its two side of coin plus Mimar Sinan was an Christian Turk who turned to Islam through devshirme
As my knowlage on topic it change between time somethimes it was a tax you could exchange your child for and sometimes it is a presitigious school people tried to send their child into which is had some more needed qualification and families of un qualified children would try to throw their child between the qualified child which end up by their child geting executed cause his name is not listed. And it eventualy opened to muslim families which destroyed it discipline causing to get corrupt cause muslim child are not had same edication or growing system as the non-muslims, non muslims would grow in house a selected family whilst muslims simply stay with their own family. Also any kind of bond is forbiden for devshirme(name of this system) so they can not marry nor ownland either trade they only allowed to bond with goverment until they retired which is aroun 40-45 for them but who lives that long in those ages is a question.
I always get bamboozled about how Ottoman multi-cultural and multi religional diversions are lost on europeans on many occasions. One can easily reduce europe to a continent of ethnically monocultured land of incredible religious intolerance. How a catholic in England, and protestant in Spain could get along, let alone a muslim, but is that really that simple in europe? I guess not. Or is it? If Ottomans were so barbaric in balkans, wouldn't christans just, I don't know, migrate? The joke is, some Turks, understandibly, sees Ottoman empire as a balkan empire and some even blame it to hold anatolian turks as third class citizens after Balkan Turks, and then Balkan minorities. Considering almost all the empire's infrastructure was built in balkans, civil and military schools, roads, rails, ports and whatnot rather than the desolation called the anatolian plateau, It is not laughable to think so but without an insight, many could miss how Balkans were an important core territory to the empire. That is why some acclaimed Turkish historians believe the Balkan wars are the real collapse of the empire. Anyway, it is refreshing to see someone is genuinly interested in history on youtube.
Thanks a lot 🙌 appreciated. I want to hear the topics about Turkish-Armenian-Kurdish history from you. It is difficult to find someone who is not prejudiced, love to investigate, and do not seek provocation🫡
many mothers in the balkan tried to give bribe money please take my/our child after a few became generals kadı governers architects and maarie the daughter of the sultan. coa many of those childre went bact to vist their villages.
The Ottomans took many bureaucratic traditions from the Byzantines. Even the brother of the Byzantine emperor and other nobles served the Ottomans after Fatih conquered Istanbul and many of them even became Muslims.
If family has only one boy Türk's will never take that boy. Family has to have more than one boy, at least. They were fairly just everything, and one boy families needs more than that Sultan.
2 of the christian children prime ministers married even into the aristocracy 1 married with te sister other is married with the daughter of the sultan the greek pargalı ibrahim pasha
@@buminkaandemirbas2729 from turkey dediğinde bir hayvandan, from "T"urkey dediğinde ise Aralık 2021'den önceki BM'de tanınan isminden bahsedersin. Ülke isimleri büyük harfle yazılır. İnek, eşek, tavuk, hindi gibi hayvanlardan bahsederken ilk harfi büyük yazmazsın. Neyse öğreneceksiniz bunları yavaş yavaş.
Thank you for your objective and proof based analysis. I hope some can benefit from it and stop underestimating the Ottoman and Turkish Civilization. Look what’s going on in Palestine and please compare and position your moral compass again. The so called “Civilized West” concept is naked in Gaza. 🤷🏼♂️
yeniçeri sistemi dünyanın en mükemmel askeri sistemidir. çünkü dayandığı temel beşeri bir kavram değildir. ilahi bir kavramdır. bugün Amerika'nın dünyada dava ettiği sistem demokrasidir. bunun için vatandaşlık vermeden önce ordu görevi ister. birçok Amerikan ordu mensubu vatandaş olmak isteyen Latinlerden veya başka milletlerden insanlardan oluşur. (copy from ottoman) Amerika'nın aksine Osmanlının dünyada dava ettiği sistem demokrasi değil, İslam'dır. bu sistem çok güçlü altyapısı sayesinde gönüllü ve daha önemlisi güvenilir insan bulmak çok daha kolaydır. yeniçeri sisteminde zorlama yoktur. hatta birçok Hristiyan ailenin Osmanlıda asker olacak şerefi ile gönüllü olarak, düğünlerle, davullarla, kutlamalarla çocuklarını vermekten mutlu olurlar. çünkü kendileri zaten Avrupa'da köylü fakir ve sefildir. bu çocukları için yeniçeri olmak kurtuluştur. son dönemde yeniçeriler biraz bozulmuş deniyor. kısman doğru, ama bütün suç yeniçerilerde mi? ben katılmıyorum. son dönem padişahların gevşekliği bence onları bozulmasına sebep verdi. en bozuk döneminde 4. Murat gibi güçlü bir padişah ile Bağdat'ı fethi ettiler. demek at sahibine göre kişniyormuş. The Janissary system is the most perfect military system in the world. because the basis on which it is based is not a human concept. It is a divine concept. Today, the system that America advocates in the world is democracy. For this reason, he wants military service before granting citizenship. Many American military personnel are made up of Latinos or people of other nationalities who want to become citizens. Unlike America, the system that the Ottoman Empire fought for in the world was not democracy, but Islam. Thanks to its very strong infrastructure, it is much easier to find volunteers and, more importantly, reliable people. There is no coercion in the janissary system. In fact, many Christian families are happy to give their children voluntarily, with weddings, drums and celebrations, with the honor of becoming soldiers in the Ottoman Empire. Because they themselves are already poor and miserable peasants in Europe. Being a janissary is salvation for these children. It is said that recently the janissaries have been a little corrupted. It's partly true, but is all the blame on the janissaries? I don't agree.I think the laxity of the last sultans caused them to deteriorate. During its most corrupt period, they conquered Baghdad with a powerful sultan like Murat IV. So the horse was neighing according to its owner.
@@hardsoldier86 İslam yüzünden dağılmadı.sorun İslam olsa Güney Amerika veya Doğu Avrupa'nın durumunun bizden neden daha kötü olduğuna cevap veremezdin.Zaten Osmanlının neden geri kaldığı cevabını bulsak yeniden ayağa kalkacaz ama bu soru öyle 'İslam' diye geçitrebileceğin kadar basit bir olgu değil.Genel olarak bütün Doğu Dünyası Batı karşısında geri kaldığı için ortadaki sorun Din meselesinin üstünde.
Im a türk. Kidnapin was done by Barbey pirates and the Tatar turks. They kidnapped wonen. They worked for the sultan. Janissaries were boys of the Christian families that lived in the ottoman territories. The were been taken very early age. They raised as Muslims in Ocak or barracks. They (boy) knew about thire background after age 40 they could get married. They were allowed to see their christian families. Life was very good for them.
correction Turkish wasnt official language of Ottomans. until very late age. there were Persian and Arabic languages officialy Ottoman Empire languages. One for speaking one for typing. also many culture were living with its own native languages. as Greek Serbian Turkish Armanian Kurdish etc. and so on.
correction to correction: The public and official language of the Ottoman Empire was Turkish, the literary language was Turkish and Persian, and the scientific language was Arabic. For example a part of poem from Osman Bey (founder): Gönül kerestesiyle bin Yenişehir ü bâzâr yap Zulm eyleme rençberlere her ne idersen var yap
Eski Yenişehri bari İnegöl'e dek hep varı Kırup geçürüp ağyârı Bursa'ya dek yık tekrar yap
You forgot to mention that janissaries DID NOT keep connection to their parents. It was forbidden. So positives of giving your child to turks voluntarily are rather questionable.
Fun fact: They actually DID stayed in touch with their families but as Janissaries wasn't allowed to leave the capital they could only send letters to them, there are also instances that Janissaries sending money to their families or back to their villages to build new stuff in the area they grow up.
bro if you knew how much people is there as parents that will see this as a good deal you would say the opposite. Back than child was free human power and just seen as a farmer thats why they don't collect them from cities.
Sokollu Mehmet was not ethnically Serb as far as known, his origin is a bit unclear, and even unclearer when we take the amount of propaganda that came out of SANU. We do know that he came from Bosnia, and Bosniaks at that time still practicted Christianity of different denominations in evident numbers. His cousin Balak Mustafa Pasha was described as a Bosniak. We also do not know what Makarije Sokolovic was to Mehmed Pasha. Sokolovic in Mehmed Pasha's name simply means that he came from the village of Sokolovici. Makarije could have been anything to him, it is unclear. But it is right that SANU did a lot of effort to demonise the Ottomans while also desperately trying to claim personas such as Mehmed-pasha.
I am Romanian, from 1400 we had to burn the fields, poison the wells and hide in the mountains.Yes children were kidnapped and taken to slavery. We fought constantly and we were never conquered and made part of the Ottoman Empire, but we did had periods of beong a vassal state. We had to pay tribute that meant gold and young boys for the Ottoman army. I am just at 4 min but do not rewritte history, because truth always prevails.
Sen tarihi heralde filmlerden öğreniyon😂 Osamanlıda yeni çeri demek iç güvenlik yani polis demekti yeni çerilerin askerlikle hiç bir ilgisi yoktur ve önüne gelende yeni çeri olamaz bazı sınavları geçmen gerekirdi GT beyinli anladınmı? Savaşlarada sipahi akıncı vs. askerler giderdi yeni çeriler az kişi giderlerdi ve sadece padişahın güvenliğini sağlarlardı gerçek budur öyle kalkıpta gerinizden tarih uydurmayın
@TP_ERK We were never part of the Ottoman Empire, we were not a province,no Mosks build on our land, no harems, no Ottoman rulers. Gypsies migrated everywhere in Europe.
Exactly. We don't need this revionistic bs, if you're from the Balkans, you know from folk tradition the horrors of the Yenitsar system. Losing your children, blood tax. We shall never allow such a thing again.
Romanian kings that defeated the Ottomans: Mircea the Elder against Baiazid. Iancu of Hunedoara, Vlad Dracul the Impaler, Matei Corvinus, Stefan the Great of Moldova- his sword from the last battle is still hold by Turkey in museum.Mihai the Brave against Sinan Pasa. Constantin Brancoveanu forced to see his 4 sons decapitated in front of him before being murdered because he will not convert to islam. The list goes on until we fought the 2 Crimean war and then allied to Russia and cross the Danube to free the Serbians and Bulgarians too in 1878. .
And you still speak your native language, imagine if ottomans were Americans or Spanish and you are the Inca And Aztec people xD You see how genuinely fair Ottomans were? They Controlled 27 nations and they still speak their languages and they still believe in their religions, Ottomans could simply turn WHOLE eastern europe to Muslims FORCEFULLY. Lucky you that Ottomans were not Americans or Spanish, there could be no Romanian, Serbian, Ukrainian, Slovakian, Bulgarian, Greek, Arab, etc etc on earth now
@CyranoBebret Americans? Who got conquered by them? You need to learn history. You can not compare the tribes in America with Romanians, that were a great kingdom before the birth of Christ , Burebista called the Killer of Celts pushed back celts further than Austria. We do speak a latin language after the Roman Conquest.
@ If Ottomans were spanish they would wipe romanians and romanian language just as they did in today's mexico, or if Ottomans were British They would wipe Romanian language just as they did in Africa where you can't find native language, If Ottomans were Americans, they would extinct WHOLE romanians and or force them to convert, You simply lucky to be colonized by Ottomans, in exchange they protect your Gens, Your language, Your nation, you simply do still exist as Romanian because of the taxes you paid to Ottomans (p.s in exchange of TAXES they did not serve in military so Ottomans sacrificed their lives to protect your nation against your lovely european enemies) But lets be an ignorant and hate Ottomans, evil guys they are NAZIS! worst than ADOLF HITLER, infact the only evil is Ottoman and if Turks were not exist the life would be happy and gay and carried away by Romanians, The only problem that prevented Great Holy Romanian Empire to scale and be the greatest power even today is simply bad turks, yeah it all make sense when i put your glasses on
Oh yeah buddy when making a claim you should give evidence 😉 and it's funny coming from an Arab who betrayed the Ottomans and destroyed the caliphate by siding with the UK, one of our worst enemies
France, england and many other colonial states forcefully recruited soldiar from africa, india and from many other regions. Even today, US, France, Russia has been using convicts to fight in distart battlefields..In middle ages, serbs were owner by the lord and they were forcefully enlisted for the war of the nobility. Ottomans as always did this more humanly acconding to that time. Ottomans saw themselves as the contniuation of Roman Empire.
Abducting children never to see their families again, torturing them, force-converting them to islam and killing or selling as common slaves those who resisted... yeah... very humane. Also if you are to accuse Europeans of ""force recruiting soldiers from Africa and India" you need to be more specific. All colonial troops were volunteers for the pay, Europeans did not force-recruit like Ottomans did. Also you as a Turk, from a country which officially back islamic terrorism and utilizes islamic terrorists as an arm of the Turkish military is kinda "rich" to accuse Europeans of employing convicts as mercenaries.
I am Turkish. Really it is very rare to see a non biased content. As the appointed antagonists. We got used to it. If you want to Turkish historians can support you on many topics. Greek 200 years of indoctrination changed their perception of the Turk's. Wish you success on your path. Let me know if it's suit you. Regards.
Well Greeks always did that thing. As an Albanian, most of Northern Greek territories were Albanian lands yet they claim it's their. Not long ago in 1957 they did a genocide against Çam people in Çamëria and none talked about it back then because it's Greece, an "old civilization" with stolen history. I mean, what can you expect from pagans who worship anything but God.
Why dont you ask him to create a version for the Armenian gen0cide as well? Unfortunately for him most people know how to use this thing called "Google" to get answers.
@@history_repeats8201 that didnt happen i can give you proof give me your discord
@@history_repeats8201 Are you talking about the Armenian g3nocide meme on the internet? There are many videos about this. I didn't understand the connection with the Janissaries. Instead, he might want a version about the Turkish g3nocide by Armenians.
@ The Janissary force was formed in the fourteenth century, either during the rule of Murad I (r. 1362-1389), the third sultan of the Ottoman Empire,[13] or during the time of Murad's father, Sultan Orhan (r. c. 1324 - 1362).[14] The Ottoman Turks instituted a tax of one-fifth on all SLAVES taken in war, and from this pool of manpower the sultans first constructed the Janissary corps as a personal army loyal only to the Ottoman sultan.[15]
The history of slavery in the Muslim world was throughout the history of Islam with slaves serving in various social and economic roles, from powerful emirs to harshly treated manual laborers. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, and animal husbandry, but most commonly as soldiers, guards, domestic workers,[1] and concubines (sex slaves).[2] The use of slaves for hard physical labor early on in Muslim history led to several destructive slave revolts,[1] the most notable being the Zanj Rebellion of 869-883, and led to the end of the practice.[3] Many rulers also used slaves in the military and administration to such an extent that slaves could seize power, as did the Mamluks.[1]
Most slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world.[4] Slavery in Islamic law does have a religious and not racial foundation in principle, although this was not always the case in practise.[5] The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa (Trans-Saharan slave trade), and Southeast Africa (Red Sea slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade), and rough estimates place the number of Africans enslaved in the twelve centuries prior to the 20th century at between six million and ten million.[6][7][8][9][10] The Ottoman slave trade came from raids into eastern and central Europe and the Caucasus connected to the Crimean slave trade, while slave traders from the Barbary Coast raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and as far afield as the British Isles and Iceland.
Historically, the Muslim Middle East was more or less united for many centuries, and slavery was hence reflected in the institution of slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661), slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate (661-750), slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258), slavery in the Mamluk Sultanate (1258-1517) and slavery in the Ottoman Empire (1517-1922), before slavery was finally abolished in one Muslim country after another during the 20th century.
In the 20th century, the authorities in Muslim states gradually outlawed and suppressed slavery, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[11] Slavery in Zanzibar was abolished in 1909, when slave concubines were freed, and the open slave market in Morocco was closed in 1922. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924 when the new Turkish Constitution disbanded the Imperial Harem and made the last concubines and eunuchs free citizens of the newly proclaimed republic.[12] Slavery in Iran and slavery in Jordan was abolished in 1929. In the Persian Gulf, slavery in Bahrain was first to be abolished in 1937, followed by slavery in Kuwait in 1949 and slavery in Qatar in 1952, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962,[13] and Oman followed in 1970. Mauritania became the last state to abolish slavery, in 1981. In 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam declared that "no one has the right to enslave" another human being.[14] As of 2001, however, instances of modern slavery persisted in areas of the Sahel,[15][16] and several 21st-century terroristic jihadist groups have attempted to use historic slavery in the Muslim world as a pretext for reviving slavery in the 21st century.
The recent phenomena of taking Yazidi women as slaves is proof that while the rest of the world has progressed Islam has remain a regressive religion that refuses to "enlighten" its followers.
A correction: it’s not “Turkish speaking Muslim aristocracy,” It’s a Turkish and Muslim dynasty.
there were a lot of non turkish people involved in this dynasty, it's there for more correct to say "turkish speaking". For example the emperors almost never had ethnically turkish wives, that also means almost never had turkish mothers. no need to get nationalistic here as well.
Wow surprising that a westerner was able to get of his nationalistic ways and actually conclude a non biased opinion. Well done sir well done.
The guy is not a historian. He is a leftist propagandist. Leftists, the same people who push for... LGtv agendas push also for the whitewashing of islamic/ottoman slave trade and child abduction.
He is not a Westerner. He is Moslem who lives in Scandinavia. Big difference!!!!
"The Ottomans were more tolerant to peasantry than the Christian Feudal lords and the church. That's why the Ottoman expansion in the Balkans was relatively fast and durable." Prof. Halil İnalcık, Harvard.
Turkish biased historian. And the conquest of the balkans was not fast at all. took over 200 years to get far into the balkans with huge resistance, Skanderbeg, Lazar, Vlad Tepes, Hunyadi, and others were leaders of balkan states who gave the ottomans hell.
As a Turkish person, thanks for bringing this up. I need to add the note that Greece, Bulgaria, Serbians, Romania, Hungaria etc built their modern nationalism based on anti-Turkish sentiment and manufacturing propaganda all the time. Their profitable political standpoint relies on EU's Turkish hate. Otherwise none of those countries are valid option for any type of modern industrial-military alliance.
I'm not gonna be one-sided and of course Islamists like Erdogan, who is ethnic Georgian who is enemy Turkish secularism and nationalism, contribute significantly for many Christian people's to build biases.
I'm also not going to skip Germany's effort to make Turkey look like a Afghanistan in the mass media. Their stiftungs openly against Turkish secularism-nationalism aka Kemalism from the start.
Thanks again.
I dont know why you are thinking so. Erdogan in 2020 July recitation in Ayasofia is a fact. If you presidant did that now in XXI ( with invitation to all muslim word to participate ) , I can imagine what was in XVI century under sultans and imams dreeming for conquest of second and first Roma. By the way internet is full with imams speaking such a things...
Sorry for my bad english, I know some turkish, in the past to XIX century , we have not problem with language but with ottoman religios discremination against all non muslims
The opresion and invasion to Viena is a fact. Of course your relation with greeks are very specific. Because of 1453 , long border etc, losana etc. Our are maybe more simple to be understand.
But even we as bulgarians have some other specifities that are connected with Ottomans in the past. And no way to say to ok to istorical facts as devsime, gazavat agaist Europe, muslim piratry in sea, enslavement of milions people in present day Ukraine and South Russia by incursions. We must to know that this oppersions had many victims, and we venerate suference of every man or woman. So bulgar - byzantin wars as example are fact and have no sympathy to " our side" . Because after ottomans we know that only the acceptance of some basic Truth is our real "side " and way to be better.
But after Erdogan religious based politics, as examples 2020 or , jihadists that Turkye a deceny was sending to Syria all about is clear.
Biz komsu ulkeiyz, ama tarihimizin olaylarin degerlendirmek kendimizinm vazifemiz. Goreviniz arasinda bir Justinianusun kilise iki kere cami yapmak varsa ...gider cogunlukta hristiyan ulkeler birlikte, ortak gorusler varsa hic sasirmayin !
Erdogan is not ethnically Georgian, his father was Greek, his village is a Pontic Greek village, called Potamia (riverside in Greek), where half of the inhabitants were slaughtered including the grandfather of Erdogan and the other half were forced converted to islam (one such family took under their wings Erdogan's father, who also converted to Islam).
Now think about it. All these people Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians, Romanians, Hungarians, Armenians note the exact same thing about Turks. These are nations that were not friendly to each other, they had their antagonisms, they certainly never rebelled together against the Ottomans but each on their own, thus there is absolutely no basis for them to have had conspired to write lies about the Ottomans. The fact of the matter is that all these people were writing the exact same things about the Turks, each in his own place, each in his own language. You coming here to call all these people "liars" is truly "rich".
Harfiyen katılıyorum
Why is nationalism so important for you? You do realize that turkey has annexed Kurdish and Laz people after the end of WWI right? How can you be nationalist without enforcing brutal assimilation policies if you annex other people's lands?
@@Fokas-n8t
1) Erdogan told himself he is ethnic Georgian. So I don't know what to tell.
2) Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians, Romanians, Armenians were built their "nationality" based on anti-Turkish sentiment which powers like especially Britain and then Russians, France, German countries used it against Ottomans to make minorities rebel. So today's hatred against Turks are result of at least 200 years of anti-Turkish sentiment to weaken Ottomans, which actually has a long history till first crusade. Especially Greeks and Bulgarians' nationalism completely written to be against Turks. Today's Greece is found by Britain and German royalties to start. Their kings were German, their political and military advisors were Great Britain. Bulgarians are heavily effected by Pan-Slavic unity propaganda from Russia, especially from Russian Orthodox church.
3) Thinking Ottoman was being mean only non-Muslims is hilarious. Many times Ottoman Sultans used devshirme pashas, and mercenaries from Serbia, Hungaria troops to massacre Turkish rebellions in Balkans, Anatolia and today's Syria and Egypt. Because Turkish soldiers would not do the same.
Addtionally, at the beginning of 19th century, dehumanisation of Turks, massacring Turks were ok in every possible way. And that's what Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians and Russians did. In the Balkans, in 100 years duration around 5.5 millions Turks, which includes also Bosnians, Albanians and Bulgarian ethnics are massacred. The biggest and longest genocide of the history. Not to mention, Greeks massacred only 640 thousands people when they enter Anatolia in Greco-Turkish war. This number is excluded from Balkan genocide.
So when I see a Greek and Bulgarian complains about how cruel Turks were, I laugh. We didn't take our revenge yet.
Thank you so much for creating this fascinating video on the Janissaries and their unique recruitment system. Your exploration of the topic through historical perspectives, especially from non-Muslim, non-Turkish, Western historians, provides a nuanced understanding that encourages deeper thought. It's a refreshing reminder to approach history with care and context, avoiding surface-level judgments. I truly appreciate the effort you put into shedding light on this complex and intriguing part of Ottoman history!
He is Moslem.
@@history_repeats8201 I didn't know that. May he find his peace in this world!
It is clearly shows that Ottomans are not haters of other religions.
They dont abuse, oppress or torture these kids, contrary they respect, nurture and educate them to become the greatest minds of the empire.
Imagine that Ottoman Sultan is marrying his daughter to one of the Jennisarrys, isnt it enough evidence?
Thanks for great video
I loved your way of telling history. A master of mine used to say: History is not knowing cases. It is problem solving.
You fit right into this. I wish you continued success.
Exceptional video; you have won my subscription.
As a Turk who has emigrated to Europe, I realised how similar devşirme system was to the modern concept of brain drain. Now obviously what made me leave Turkey was not a forced tithe, but out of social and economic pressures. It was clear to me and my family that someone of my skills and principles would become more successful and live a better life (at least for the time being) in Europe. My families support in this process has parallels to families in the Balkans who would (allegedly) willingly hand over their children to the devşirme system.
I even see parallels in how contemporary people respond to people such as myself and the larger trend of brain drain. Some decry it a betrayal on the part of those who are leaving, some label it a theft of Turkey's youth by the imperialist(/insert other slogan here) western powers. Yet some others look at it more positively; there are those who say the system will benefit Turkey by way of the material capital, knowledge or experience that some of those "brain drainers" will at some point bring back with them.
I of course have not covered all viewpoints on the matter and will not share mine, but hopefully the sheer parallel between today's brain drain and the devşirme system.
Similar? Did you convert to christianity? Did you embrace european values? I dont think so.
@@Пальцерезка Avrupa Müslüman olup İslâmi değerleri benimsemeye başladılar
You had a choice. You could have stayed in Turkey and collected hazelnuts and bless Erdogan's balls for living. The Christians of the Balkans didnt have a chance. They were Slaves
@@Пальцерезка Did you revert to christianity? Have you ever read bible from beginning to the end? Did you embrace eastern european values_?? I don't think so, if you quit rage and say yes! i am a christian and i read bible, i would like to ask do you fast like a true christian.?_ Do you pray? Do you read bible daily? Come one you have no difference with the Turkish dude who migrated to Germany, if your imagination of being "christian" is eating pork don't worry alot of turks are doing that too, so good morning friend, isn't it your time to convert to Christianity too_???
@@Пальцерезка Problems with reading and comprehension I see
The term kidnap is western propaganda. The word is either forcefull or willing recruitment of some christians into janissary corps depending on number male children.
Conscription is not kidnapping.
The Janissary force was formed in the fourteenth century, either during the rule of Murad I (r. 1362-1389), the third sultan of the Ottoman Empire,[13] or during the time of Murad's father, Sultan Orhan (r. c. 1324 - 1362).[14] The Ottoman Turks instituted a tax of one-fifth on all SLAVES taken in war, and from this pool of manpower the sultans first constructed the Janissary corps as a personal army loyal only to the Ottoman sultan.[15]
The history of slavery in the Muslim world was throughout the history of Islam with slaves serving in various social and economic roles, from powerful emirs to harshly treated manual laborers. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, and animal husbandry, but most commonly as soldiers, guards, domestic workers,[1] and concubines (sex slaves).[2] The use of slaves for hard physical labor early on in Muslim history led to several destructive slave revolts,[1] the most notable being the Zanj Rebellion of 869-883, and led to the end of the practice.[3] Many rulers also used slaves in the military and administration to such an extent that slaves could seize power, as did the Mamluks.[1]
Most slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world.[4] Slavery in Islamic law does have a religious and not racial foundation in principle, although this was not always the case in practise.[5] The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa (Trans-Saharan slave trade), and Southeast Africa (Red Sea slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade), and rough estimates place the number of Africans enslaved in the twelve centuries prior to the 20th century at between six million and ten million.[6][7][8][9][10] The Ottoman slave trade came from raids into eastern and central Europe and the Caucasus connected to the Crimean slave trade, while slave traders from the Barbary Coast raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and as far afield as the British Isles and Iceland.
Historically, the Muslim Middle East was more or less united for many centuries, and slavery was hence reflected in the institution of slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661), slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate (661-750), slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258), slavery in the Mamluk Sultanate (1258-1517) and slavery in the Ottoman Empire (1517-1922), before slavery was finally abolished in one Muslim country after another during the 20th century.
In the 20th century, the authorities in Muslim states gradually outlawed and suppressed slavery, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[11] Slavery in Zanzibar was abolished in 1909, when slave concubines were freed, and the open slave market in Morocco was closed in 1922. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924 when the new Turkish Constitution disbanded the Imperial Harem and made the last concubines and eunuchs free citizens of the newly proclaimed republic.[12] Slavery in Iran and slavery in Jordan was abolished in 1929. In the Persian Gulf, slavery in Bahrain was first to be abolished in 1937, followed by slavery in Kuwait in 1949 and slavery in Qatar in 1952, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962,[13] and Oman followed in 1970. Mauritania became the last state to abolish slavery, in 1981. In 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam declared that "no one has the right to enslave" another human being.[14] As of 2001, however, instances of modern slavery persisted in areas of the Sahel,[15][16] and several 21st-century terroristic jihadist groups have attempted to use historic slavery in the Muslim world as a pretext for reviving slavery in the 21st century.
The recent phenomena of taking Yazidi women as slaves is proof that while the rest of the world has progressed Islam has remain a regressive religion that refuses to "enlighten" its followers.
Yeah like we still have it and many countries still have it. It is in the law.
I've been thinking about this topic on and off for, well, years now, and I have a few things on my mind (I'm not a historian, I'm just generally curious):
1) You're talking about a period of 400+ years and a huge geography. During this period the perception of both the people who were ruled and the people who ruled them changed drastically. So I expect different actions, reactions (and sentiments) at diffferent regions and time periods of the Ottoman empire.
2) My impression is that Ottomans were not simply evil or good, they were mostly pragmatic, so indifferent. I expect that they used whichever method was more efficient for them at the time: "Bribe them if you can, force them if you must" maybe. It wasn't about "what's good for people", it was about "what's good for the empire" (empire being the Ottoman family, of course). So probably a more suitable question is: "Is there any region or time period that these two aligned?".
3) Earliest sources about this topic are (mostly) written after the disbandment of the janissaries. In Constantinople, Sultan Mahmut burned down every document he could think of related to janisseries (even the music sheets), and in Europe various conflicts probably destroyed any possible contemporary accounts about the practice. Secondary documents from the Ottoman archives, like financial documents, court proceedings, or property surveys, might give clues about the Ottoman perception. As for people's perception, I have no idea where to find written accounts (or even if they exist), but I'm curious if some of the loan words from Turkish can tell a part of the story (Like, I think in Ukranian(?) the word "janissary" or "jannisar" means traitor (or samething like that), so I wonder how and when that came to be).
4) All of the above points are written by dry academic curiosity, without any regard to ethical concerns. And I gotta be honest, if you bring back ethics to the table, the whole practice looks horrific, regardless of the circumstances, or who benefited in which way. So, maybe it wasn't that bad, or maybe it was. But eventually, it WAS a bad practice and harmed all parties. So maybe don't lock up the ethics entirely for the sake of academics?
The Ottoman Empire collected the "Cizye" tax from its Christian subjects. This was equivalent to 30% of all income that year.
However, those who could not pay this, would have one of their male children, who were over 7 but not over 20, educated at a school called "Enderun" and trained to employ them in government positions.
The "Enderun" school is the most beautiful and magnificent building of the Topkapi Palace.
There, children from Rumelia and Crimea received the best education of the age with opportunities they could not even dream of.
A maximum of 10 out of every 100 children were taken into the Janissary Corps if they were capable of fighting. The children would grow up with other male children in wealthy Turkish families.
TURKS VERY IMPORTANTLY APPRECIATED THESE CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY WERE SEEN AS A KIND OF ORPHAN AND THE CONCEPT OF ORPHAN IS VERY IMPORTANT IN TURKISH CULTURE.
THE PUNISHMENT FOR BEATING AN ORPHAN AND BEING INJUSTICE TO THEM WAS DEATH!
ISLAM ALSO CONDEMNS DISCRIMINATION AND INJUSTICE TOWARDS CHILDREN WITHOUT PARENTS. THIS IS AN UNPARTICULAR SIN!
NO CHILD WAS EVER EVER MIStreated IN THE SAME WAY!
IN ADDITION, WHEN THESE CHILDREN BECAME ADULTS, THEY WOULD BE OF GREAT HELP TO THEIR REAL FAMILIES AND THEIR COUNTRIES!
THE TURKISH EMPIRE ALSO REJECTED THE AFRICAN SLAVERY SYSTEM AND BEING A SLAVE OWNER WAS NOT WELCOMED AMONG THE TURKS!
EACH COMMUNITY WAS FREE TO LIVE THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND RELIGION! EVEN THE CENTER OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES, THE PATRIARCHATE, IS IN ISTANBUL TODAY AND IS OPEN TO WORSHIP!
has sector lane...
OKAY BUT WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING
@@MimOzanTamamogullar shouting?
@@mahalakatanga what you mean?
They usually came from the poor families… And they became rich, well educated, even famous for some of them.
Wow... You, sir, a truly unique gem. Thanks for that!
In a world that titles were hereditary and rising was a threat to status quo, Janissary system were the ''evil'' since they were rising according to their merits, relatively.
gördüğüm en orijinal videolardan biri.
tarih öğrenmek ancak bu kadar ayrıntılı ve basit olabilir.
What a great instructive video ! You made a great work ! Thank you for mentionning all the sources.
Why can't we make donation on this video ?
Thank you for actually going into detail and being unbiased. Most history channels on TH-cam usually confuse it as chattel slavery or simplify it as Blood Tax.
if you recruit administrator from alien state, they are less likely to do nepotism vs the native citizen simply because they don't have family/connection in close proximity
You have touched on a very good point, in fact, the original reason why the Ottomans used this system intensively was the fear of a Turkish or Muslim family gaining power and seizing the throne. For this reason, Muslim Turkish families were kept away from trade and were generally directed to the agricultural sector in the countryside, and in the last period of the Ottoman Empire, the groups with power were always non-Muslim minorities and the Turks were the poor majority.
Main reason is Ottoman empire used mostly soft power and states governed internally so there wasnt any reason to force for anything. Breaking is not the point bending slightly to have common ground is the point. The time Ottoman empire lost its soft power and reached logictic max it started to get stagnate eventually collapse. Our soft power mainly gone away due to raising of nationality with French revulution and corruption. Ottomans and eventualy people on Turkey has increadibly varried dnas due to soft power dynamics (people tend to marry each other when you dont discriminate shocker I know.) and non nationality based governence people mixed together and assimilated into the culture they created together so nationality effected us a lot.
We still have that ambigious relationship ethnic stuff it is akin to a religion(I am not talking about Islam btw) rather than a dna based ethnicity. So if you say Turkish you are Turkish I see from your face that you are not Turkish but in 2nd generation mixed with us that would mean nothing. Even if you dont have one percent blood of us it is a pride to have different people in our name.
16:00 Slight correction: I am not claiming that this bridge and the Pasha Qasim Mosque is designed by Sinan. The Sulaymiyya mosque is, however, these other buildings are just general representations of roads and mosques in the Ottoman empire to give some visual representation to the concept of Ottoman road and bridge construction etc.
How can you cover the subject without going to the origins of the formation of the Janissaries'? I guess it wasn't convenient to your objective?
The Janissary force was formed in the fourteenth century, either during the rule of Murad I (r. 1362-1389), the third sultan of the Ottoman Empire,[13] or during the time of Murad's father, Sultan Orhan (r. c. 1324 - 1362).[14] The Ottoman Turks instituted a tax of one-fifth on all SLAVES taken in war, and from this pool of manpower the sultans first constructed the Janissary corps as a personal army loyal only to the Ottoman sultan.[15]
The history of slavery in the Muslim world was throughout the history of Islam with slaves serving in various social and economic roles, from powerful emirs to harshly treated manual laborers. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, and animal husbandry, but most commonly as soldiers, guards, domestic workers,[1] and concubines (sex slaves).[2] The use of slaves for hard physical labor early on in Muslim history led to several destructive slave revolts,[1] the most notable being the Zanj Rebellion of 869-883, and led to the end of the practice.[3] Many rulers also used slaves in the military and administration to such an extent that slaves could seize power, as did the Mamluks.[1]
Most slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world.[4] Slavery in Islamic law does have a religious and not racial foundation in principle, although this was not always the case in practise.[5] The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa (Trans-Saharan slave trade), and Southeast Africa (Red Sea slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade), and rough estimates place the number of Africans enslaved in the twelve centuries prior to the 20th century at between six million and ten million.[6][7][8][9][10] The Ottoman slave trade came from raids into eastern and central Europe and the Caucasus connected to the Crimean slave trade, while slave traders from the Barbary Coast raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and as far afield as the British Isles and Iceland.
Historically, the Muslim Middle East was more or less united for many centuries, and slavery was hence reflected in the institution of slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661), slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate (661-750), slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258), slavery in the Mamluk Sultanate (1258-1517) and slavery in the Ottoman Empire (1517-1922), before slavery was finally abolished in one Muslim country after another during the 20th century.
In the 20th century, the authorities in Muslim states gradually outlawed and suppressed slavery, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[11] Slavery in Zanzibar was abolished in 1909, when slave concubines were freed, and the open slave market in Morocco was closed in 1922. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924 when the new Turkish Constitution disbanded the Imperial Harem and made the last concubines and eunuchs free citizens of the newly proclaimed republic.[12] Slavery in Iran and slavery in Jordan was abolished in 1929. In the Persian Gulf, slavery in Bahrain was first to be abolished in 1937, followed by slavery in Kuwait in 1949 and slavery in Qatar in 1952, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962,[13] and Oman followed in 1970. Mauritania became the last state to abolish slavery, in 1981. In 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam declared that "no one has the right to enslave" another human being.[14] As of 2001, however, instances of modern slavery persisted in areas of the Sahel,[15][16] and several 21st-century terroristic jihadist groups have attempted to use historic slavery in the Muslim world as a pretext for reviving slavery in the 21st century.
The recent phenomena of taking Yazidi women as slaves is proof that while the rest of the world has progressed Islam has remain a regressive religion that refuses to "enlighten" its followers.
In year 2025 give the right to a poor european guy's family to (lets say) Being a prime minister of United Arab Emirates at Dubai to ride Lamborghini's Fly with Jets, and have 4 young beautiful Girlfriends, plus tens or hundreds of houses and unlimited supply of wage, i believe WHOLE of the europe, even the richest of the rich would want to live the life as a muslim in the UAE, that's how it was in Ottoman to be a Jannisarry
Hi, greetings from Turkey. Liked your approach and narrative very much. Since this is just a comment, not an article :) I shall give the very basic insight to the topic by oversimplifying :), my apologies. Ottoman Empire could be considered as Turkic - just may be - in the times of establishment. Specially after conquering Istanbul, the empire considered itself as succesor of Byzantine. The administrators, burocrats, high rank commanders or any important position you would look was filled by either janissaries or by ethnic Greek, Armanian, Serbian, Bosnian or whatever nation you could count to be under Ottoman rule. I go furthermore, all of important structures, most of the investments were in European part of the empire. Actually thats the result of all hişgh rank administrators being from those regions. And I think this begs the question "why" in your mind :) Well it is simple. You just go back in the time, the establishment era of the empire, and a little bit further back. The Grand Seljuk Empire was divided in to pieces, and Anatolian Seljuk Empire was one of those parts. Things were okay for a while. And by the way, The Anatolian Seljuk Empire is the last real Turkic Empire in the history. The capital of this empire was Konya (its where I live). And the the mongols came. Invaded Anatolia, looted, and went back. While they leave, they divide the peninsula in to small states called "bejlik" (comes from "beylik", the root "bey" means kind of powerfull man simply and is being used as exact translation of Mr. in present day) These bejliks were simply small states ruled by one powerfull family of the region. And the Ottoman family was one of these bejliks located in the further end of peninsula, sharing direct border with Byzantine. While other bejliks compete and even fight with each other (this was the reason mongols established such a structure) the small bejlik of Ottoman prefered to take small bites from Byzantine soils - either by fighting, or supporting one Byzantine governor against other one. As the time goes by, Ottomans gain a lot of land in Europe, which they use it as a jumping point in further Europe, to Balcans. In the meantime, they had some clashes with other bejliks, but usually avoid big fights. And at the times, there was the question of "who shall be the bejlik to collect all the ruling power over other bejliks and unify them. After conquering of İstanbul, Sultan Mehmed II turned his eyes to Anatolia, and simply answered the question - by overtaking other bejliks one by one.
I am so sorry but this was only the context to the answer of my first question 😅Dont worry, rest is short. After completely taking over Anatolia, Ottoman Sultans never allowed any Turk in the administration, never married Turkish women. Because they had the fear of any high rank Turk would claim the throne with their roots and family rights coming from the bejlik times. They administrated Anatolia very different from other parts of the Empire. Never invested much, never allowed any family to get too rich or strong. Didnt establish education, healthcare and commercial instutions. Instead, high rank administrators came from "devshirme", who dont have long and strong family roots, who actually were nothing. They all got Ottoman names (not Turkic), all got Ottoman cultural identity, but they all knew themselves and others were children of phesants once upon a time. And this intended sellection of pheasant boys to be important soldiers and intentionally keeping Anatolia poor and uncivilised policy became the core of Ottoman identity. The more devshirme came to important positions, more they invested in Europe, left Anatolia and Turks unattended. If today, you could take DNA's from Sultans specially after Mehmed II, you wouldnt find a single drop of Turkish blood. As I told, Sultans breeded - nearly - only non Turkic women. A language was formed around the palace and administration called Ottoman Language, which was simply overcomplicating simple Turkish with Arabic and Persian. Only elites were to speak and wright in this language. So, may be in the beginig, some boys were taken by force to be trained as soldiers, later it became something favored among European nations under Ottoman rule, since the Turks were intentionaly being kept away from the center.
I am finishing my ridiculously long "comment" with the result and effects of this policy. The nationalism movement began and all these European nations tear themself apart from the empire and started with well structures, rich economy, clean and nice organised cities while Turkey had to establish itself on poor, un-invested, poorly structured Anatolia with uneducated, unhealthy, sick and criple pheasant people whose most sons were died to defend the parts of the empire which they couldnt imagine - let alone know - even exist. All because the fear of losing the throne to another Turkish dinesty. I want people just to ask this question to themselves while judging Ottoman Empire. What language is spoken in all these countries? Which religion is dominant? Which culture they live their lives, even from the begining of their independence from Ottoman Empire. Greece was under Ottoman rule for 400 years. Four-HUndred-Years...! If Ottoman Empire was an oppressionist monster, could any christian remain and deliver their religion to next generations? Could they even remember what was greek language was? Same question for all nations such else Romanians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Serbians, Croatians and many more.. I advise people to go visit Algeria - speaking Arabic or Berberi (their native language) can only cause trouble. A clear French though, opens many doors as a tourist.
I am shutting th f up, my apologies, and greetings!
janniseries were stronger than sultan in terms of internal politics and wealthier than european lords at that time
I mean, the enderun school was the highest level of education in the Ottoman Empire.
If you mean “Ottomans kidnapped” The answer is NO, they didn’t kidnapped, They took them and also some of them joined to Ottomans willingly also done by their parents as well. Note: Ottomans were NOT Turks.! I am a Turk..
Another point to add: It wasn't easy to be drafted into the Janissary Corps. You had to fulfill certain criteria in order to be eligible for recruitment. The recruiters were looking for traits such as strength, eye sight or riding skills etc. The nationalistc Revisionist paint a caricature of barbaric turks entering a slavic village and pillaging younglings left and right which couldn't be further from the truth. The proper term to describe process of devshirme would be that of a 'draft board'.
Also they have to have a brother, even a child that checks all the boxes of what Janissaries are looking, if he's a single child he wouldn't be taken into the Devshirme system.
Thank you for the video! As a Turk, I always thought that all the drama about Janissaries was overblown. To me, they always seemed like your run-of-the-mill, maybe slightly elite, imperial standing army.
If Türk's rules the world, you will see true humanity and justice.
🦃🦃🦃🦃🦃
biz niye bu haldeyiz o zaman
@@dogukan127 başındakiler Türk ve Türkiye düşmanıda o yüzden
And governed by islam too
Anadoluda bir deyiş vardır, at yalanı diye başlar. Bilmem bilir misin.
Thanks for the video.
Good work. Congratulations !
This is the first video talk about the system in being naughty and not biased
Currently, all across the geography known as europe, there are over 5000 stone inscriptions which can only be deciphered by ancient Turk language, and by no other language/s.
These stone inscriptions are located all across west, north, central and east europe.
The people we known in modernity as 'european' are actually people who came from around where India is.
Scientists suggest that the migration of people into north america and from there to central and south america occured not only thru the Bearing Bridge (when the strait was a land mass), but also with sea vessels from the shores of what we now know as France into north americas since past 40,000 years much before the ''europeans'' came from around India.
The aboriginal people of the reigions we currently know as europe and asia, that is eurasia were the ancestors of modern day Turks (''Turks'' not only as in the inhabitants of Turkish Republic, but all other Turk people across vast geography).
The people we know as ''european'' are late comers into the region, killing off and assimilating the local populations.
For example the governments of Sweden even until the 1980's, (yes 1980's not 1880's) had a state policy to forcible have indegineous female population surgically mutilated so not to be able to get pregnant, preventing the indegineous population to protect it self.
The Roman Empire are took most of it's sciences, arts and state governnance laws from the Etrcuscans, who even the modern day europeans admit are people akin with the central asian people, basically they are camoflaging the fact that they are one of the ancestors of modern day Turks.
Likewise many other indegineous populations of what is now know as eurasia are actually ancestors of Turks and when comparing and studying the languages we find the connection.
Certainly they did not speak ''modern Turkish'' as spoken in the Republic of Turkiye, but you can clearly see the language evolving into what it has become.
Of course to know all this one needs to steer away from ''his-story'' and dewelve in 'history''.
Best wishes.
Here's something off topic that you may find interesting. :)
The name of my country has nothing to do with the interesting and delicious bird 'turkey'......
.....but the name of the bird does have a connection with the name of my country, let me explain. :)
In the past 40 years 37 countries have changed their name, partially or fully.
Obviously one can not change the name of an apple or an orange etc in other languages,
but country names are like peoples' individual names, so if you're named John we don't call you Karen. :)
Name of my country has always been Türkiye, it's been known as such since around the 1200's, many times presented as 'Turkiye' in various maps and memoirs by western travellers and cartographers.
The name it self has a suffix, '-iye', that is Turk-iye, where the -iye suffix means 'land of/belonging to',
this is just like the Latin suffix of '-ia', which exists in such country names like
Austr-ia, Austral-ia, Indones-ia etc. The Latin suffix -ia probably originates from Turkish -iye as Turkish been over 10,000 years is much older than Latin which is around 2300 years old with proto-Latin stretching back about 2700 years..
Many would remember the country Czechoslovak-ia which (changed names and) became Slovak-ia and Czech Republic and a few years ago changed that to Czechia (that is Czech-ia).
The use of '-iye/-ia' is the same as the the use of '-land' suffix that comes after various country names like
Ire(Eire)-land, Po(le)-land, Eng(Anglo)-land and so on and so on, so ''-ia/iye'' is the same '-land''
Spelled in different languages in different ways to phonetically RESEMBLE (to sound like) 'Türkiye', in time we got;
Turq-uía (in Spanish),
Turch-ia (in Italian),
Turq-uie (in French)
Turk-ei (in German)
Turk-ey (in English)
All trying to resemble/sound like the word ''Türk-iye''.
Mind you this was way before the animal we currently know as turkey was found by the europeans when they explored the north americas. The bird was first sent to europe from north americas in the year 1519, so up until that point there was no bird named by white people as turkey....
...during their exploration/invasion of north americas, they came across the bird and thought it was a specie of the fowl/chicken they had been buying from the country of Turkiye (as imperial europeans and Türkiye existed at the time formally known as Ottoman State, but collogially it was ''Türkiye'' as present in various historic documents/maps etc, meaning ''land of the Turks''), so they named the bird 'Turkey Fowl' to define 'Turkish Chicken'...
....just like how a dog breed is known as German Shepherd (because it's from Germany), American Bulldog, British Terrier, Greek Harehound etc etc.
In time you don't get to call the harehound simply as Greek or you don't call the terrier Britirsh, or shepherd as simply German,
but in time the Turkish Fowl started to be called just 'Turkey' and later 'turkey', and this went on for hundreds of years.
Now in modern times, this caused confusion, especially when we have people across the world unable to point to their own country on an atlas.
Basically we didn't change the name of our country, we changed the mistake made in the English language. : )
So, there's some tid bit information for you to have a great day, if you read upto this point you have a great night too, ohh just have a wonderfull life. : )
Best wishes. ;)
nice yapping but bullshit
@@krkrbbr Another copium smoker found.
I am a historian and never seen one of these. Do you have a credible Western reference?
@@KenanTurkiye 🦃🦃🦃🦃🦃
Ottoman beylik and state was Türk. When it turned in to empire the ruling elites and their army of bodyguards were not Türk anymore. The Sultans and their families were converts themselves. They looked down at Türks and did massacres to Türks. Anything you will put responsibility put it to those convert palace people. Not to Türk commoners who suffered alot becasue of those converts at farmlands and battlefields, losing their lives.
I agree as a Türk, the ottoman empire started to be against Türks in its downfall
THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF DEVŞİRME SYSTEM WAS ABOUT THE FEAR OF TURKS CHALLENGING THEIR ABSOLUTE POWER. TURKS IN THEIR HISTORY WERE RULED BY A LEADER WHO CONSULTED THE ELDERS COMITTEE. KEEPING THE TURKS AT A BAY THEY SUCCEEDED IN HAVING ABSOLUTE POWER. IN THE END TURKS HAD THE LAST WORD.
@@commenterthe3rd I BEG TO DIFFER. THEIR DOWNFALL WAS BECAUSE THEY ALMOST SUCCEDED IN MARGINALISING THE TURKS, AND THEY HAD NO DEFENDERS ANY MORE. AND THEY LOST TO THE TURKS.
Tam saçmalamoysın. Kıt bilginla atıp tutuyorsun..
@@nathanruben3372 Terbiyeli olun. Ben Türküm ve Tarih eğitimi de aldım. Saygısızlığınız ve ırkçılığınızdan dolayı Rapor edildiniz.
reducing conscription -albeit still horrid- to "kidnapping" is how some people try to show the devshirme as more evil than it is. This is a deliberate word-replacement.
Not some, about 20 Grand vezirs were "Devsirme" (localised/switched is the correct translation), almost all admirals were so! The Ottomans took this system from the Roman empire and perfected it essentially. The US is doing the same today, it was the only system offering people of merit the opportunity to vertical ascension into social classes while European kingdoms were strictly feudal! Not to mention the Janissaries were so powerful that they toppled (and even allegedly killed one) sultans! which led to their abolition eventually. So pretty much everything modern people know about the system is faar from truth! Pretty much all those devsirme pashas were married to royal princesses, so a poor villagers child from the balkans had the opportunity to become aristocrats and benefit their hometowns with their power which they ultimately did!! Even today, Serbs can't be called Turcophiles, but go to the town of Sokol and see how they are revered!!
Btw, my favourite grand vezir who was a devsirme is "Scipione of Cigala", who took the muslim name Yusuf Sinan pasha, the famous district "Cagaloglu" in old town istanbul has been named after him..His life story is the real "Count of Montecristo" ! They should definitely make a movie about him..
The Albanians lands are divided by the "Treaty Peace of London" in 1913. Kosovo, Shkupi, Manastir, Chameria, Presheva, Malesia, Pazar I Ri are some Albanians territories outside todays Albania.
PRIZREN LEAGUE Albanian unity 1878, after Nish given to ser*a cause Rusia war defeat
Excellent work.❤
Brilliant idea, lets bring back the sultan and crown you as the grand vizier right away. A Norwegian leading a janissary corps - that would be a nice time to be alive!
But jokes aside, thank you for your imput on this topic, i enjoyed watching it!
Many Turkic states established in Central Asia and the Middle East did not last long after the death of their leaders due to the sharing of lands among their children or the capture of the state by other nobles. The Ottoman Empire solved these problems by fratricide and by not allowing a noble class around it. For this reason, the janissaries were forbidden to marry and to engage in any work other than military service, and in the empire there was no noble class such as lords and counts as in European states, there was only the Sultan and those who served him.
Support janisarij🎉🎉🎉
Incredibly well done research and video. Kudos. Unfortunately no amount of high quality research stating facts can overcome the immense hate towards the empire and the Turks.
As a Turkish person senin taşşanı yiyim
as you say oversimplifying history for political gain is an insult to historians and the history
So it is not perfect, but it is very far from a horror story.
Janisaries werent oppressed because they were taken to become turkish at ages as up to 10. And a lot of the jannisaries were castrated too.
From what the Turkish Education System has taught me, I can say that: Young Christian children are taken from their families and taught at "Enderun Mektebi", an elite school in the Ottoman Empire. Since people who studied at "Enderun Mektebi" could reach important positions such as vizier, prosecutor, and janissary in the Ottoman Empire, Christian families are positive about this issue. And there is no such thing as taking children without their parents' approval. (I didn't watch the video so don't kill me) I'm just saying.
I also missed an important point. Christian children were converted to Islam. They did not have the option of not being Muslim.
as a Turk, as you say its complicated topic but in the short its two side of coin plus Mimar Sinan was an Christian Turk who turned to Islam through devshirme
As my knowlage on topic it change between time somethimes it was a tax you could exchange your child for and sometimes it is a presitigious school people tried to send their child into which is had some more needed qualification and families of un qualified children would try to throw their child between the qualified child which end up by their child geting executed cause his name is not listed. And it eventualy opened to muslim families which destroyed it discipline causing to get corrupt cause muslim child are not had same edication or growing system as the non-muslims, non muslims would grow in house a selected family whilst muslims simply stay with their own family. Also any kind of bond is forbiden for devshirme(name of this system) so they can not marry nor ownland either trade they only allowed to bond with goverment until they retired which is aroun 40-45 for them but who lives that long in those ages is a question.
I always get bamboozled about how Ottoman multi-cultural and multi religional diversions are lost on europeans on many occasions. One can easily reduce europe to a continent of ethnically monocultured land of incredible religious intolerance. How a catholic in England, and protestant in Spain could get along, let alone a muslim, but is that really that simple in europe? I guess not. Or is it? If Ottomans were so barbaric in balkans, wouldn't christans just, I don't know, migrate?
The joke is, some Turks, understandibly, sees Ottoman empire as a balkan empire and some even blame it to hold anatolian turks as third class citizens after Balkan Turks, and then Balkan minorities. Considering almost all the empire's infrastructure was built in balkans, civil and military schools, roads, rails, ports and whatnot rather than the desolation called the anatolian plateau, It is not laughable to think so but without an insight, many could miss how Balkans were an important core territory to the empire.
That is why some acclaimed Turkish historians believe the Balkan wars are the real collapse of the empire.
Anyway, it is refreshing to see someone is genuinly interested in history on youtube.
Migrate!??!! From their OWN lands??? In the Middle Ages? What a brainlet take.
@ApollonianSoldier I don't get the sarcasm, what do you mean?
Thanks a lot 🙌 appreciated. I want to hear the topics about Turkish-Armenian-Kurdish history from you. It is difficult to find someone who is not prejudiced, love to investigate, and do not seek provocation🫡
26:20 not the book falling over after all this argumentation😂
many mothers in the balkan tried to give bribe money please take my/our child after a few became generals kadı governers architects and maarie the daughter of the sultan. coa many of those childre went bact to vist their villages.
The Ottomans took many bureaucratic traditions from the Byzantines. Even the brother of the Byzantine emperor and other nobles served the Ottomans after Fatih conquered Istanbul and many of them even became Muslims.
The Ottomans, at least since the early modern period, self identified as Rumelian or European. Not Turk or Osmanli.
The Byzantines were not taking slaves from other religions and forcibly convert them to Christianity. This is only done by the moslems
@@erminization Source: McDonald's
Yanlış bürokrasiyi bütün dünya Osmanlı ve Babürlerden öğrenmiştir
@@KhanTonyukuk 🤣😂🤣😂
Required viewing for anyone with a grain of sincerity
If family has only one boy Türk's will never take that boy. Family has to have more than one boy, at least. They were fairly just everything, and one boy families needs more than that Sultan.
Thank you.. The History should be handled as history, not a source of justification tool for politics.
2 of the christian children prime ministers married even into the aristocracy 1 married with te sister other is married with the daughter of the sultan the greek pargalı ibrahim pasha
Devširme is the most common Islamophobic "argument" of Serbian nacionalists.
Thank you
You may also want to look into the slave dynasties of Muslim Indian Rulers.
Thanks from turkey
Bir hindiden teşekkür aldığı için kesin çok mutlu olmuştur.
@skyhighbora from turkey diyince hindi olmuyor
@@buminkaandemirbas2729 from turkey dediğinde bir hayvandan, from "T"urkey dediğinde ise Aralık 2021'den önceki BM'de tanınan isminden bahsedersin. Ülke isimleri büyük harfle yazılır. İnek, eşek, tavuk, hindi gibi hayvanlardan bahsederken ilk harfi büyük yazmazsın. Neyse öğreneceksiniz bunları yavaş yavaş.
Thank you for your objective and proof based analysis. I hope some can benefit from it and stop underestimating the Ottoman and Turkish Civilization. Look what’s going on in Palestine and please compare and position your moral compass again. The so called “Civilized West” concept is naked in Gaza. 🤷🏼♂️
yea
yeniçeri sistemi dünyanın en mükemmel askeri sistemidir. çünkü dayandığı temel beşeri bir kavram değildir. ilahi bir kavramdır. bugün Amerika'nın dünyada dava ettiği sistem demokrasidir. bunun için vatandaşlık vermeden önce ordu görevi ister. birçok Amerikan ordu mensubu vatandaş olmak isteyen Latinlerden veya başka milletlerden insanlardan oluşur. (copy from ottoman) Amerika'nın aksine Osmanlının dünyada dava ettiği sistem demokrasi değil, İslam'dır. bu sistem çok güçlü altyapısı sayesinde gönüllü ve daha önemlisi güvenilir insan bulmak çok daha kolaydır. yeniçeri sisteminde zorlama yoktur. hatta birçok Hristiyan ailenin Osmanlıda asker olacak şerefi ile gönüllü olarak, düğünlerle, davullarla, kutlamalarla çocuklarını vermekten mutlu olurlar. çünkü kendileri zaten Avrupa'da köylü fakir ve sefildir. bu çocukları için yeniçeri olmak kurtuluştur. son dönemde yeniçeriler biraz bozulmuş deniyor. kısman doğru, ama bütün suç yeniçerilerde mi? ben katılmıyorum. son dönem padişahların gevşekliği bence onları bozulmasına sebep verdi. en bozuk döneminde 4. Murat gibi güçlü bir padişah ile Bağdat'ı fethi ettiler. demek at sahibine göre kişniyormuş.
The Janissary system is the most perfect military system in the world. because the basis on which it is based is not a human concept. It is a divine concept. Today, the system that America advocates in the world is democracy. For this reason, he wants military service before granting citizenship. Many American military personnel are made up of Latinos or people of other nationalities who want to become citizens. Unlike America, the system that the Ottoman Empire fought for in the world was not democracy, but Islam. Thanks to its very strong infrastructure, it is much easier to find volunteers and, more importantly, reliable people. There is no coercion in the janissary system. In fact, many Christian families are happy to give their children voluntarily, with weddings, drums and celebrations, with the honor of becoming soldiers in the Ottoman Empire. Because they themselves are already poor and miserable peasants in Europe. Being a janissary is salvation for these children. It is said that recently the janissaries have been a little corrupted. It's partly true, but is all the blame on the janissaries? I don't agree.I think the laxity of the last sultans caused them to deteriorate. During its most corrupt period, they conquered Baghdad with a powerful sultan like Murat IV. So the horse was neighing according to its owner.
Ne saçmalıyorsun islam ın olumsuz yönlerini söylemeyerek algıyapıyorsun o kadar iyi ise Osmanlı niye dağıldı?
@@hardsoldier86 İslam yüzünden dağılmadı.sorun İslam olsa Güney Amerika veya Doğu Avrupa'nın durumunun bizden neden daha kötü olduğuna cevap veremezdin.Zaten Osmanlının neden geri kaldığı cevabını bulsak yeniden ayağa kalkacaz ama bu soru öyle 'İslam' diye geçitrebileceğin kadar basit bir olgu değil.Genel olarak bütün Doğu Dünyası Batı karşısında geri kaldığı için ortadaki sorun Din meselesinin üstünde.
Im a türk. Kidnapin was done by Barbey pirates and the Tatar turks. They kidnapped wonen. They worked for the sultan. Janissaries were boys of the Christian families that lived in the ottoman territories. The were been taken very early age. They raised as Muslims in Ocak or barracks. They (boy) knew about thire background after age 40 they could get married. They were allowed to see their christian families. Life was very good for them.
correction Turkish wasnt official language of Ottomans. until very late age. there were Persian and Arabic languages officialy Ottoman Empire languages. One for speaking one for typing.
also many culture were living with its own native languages. as Greek Serbian Turkish Armanian Kurdish etc.
and so on.
correction to correction: The public and official language of the Ottoman Empire was Turkish, the literary language was Turkish and Persian, and the scientific language was Arabic. For example a part of poem from Osman Bey (founder):
Gönül kerestesiyle bin Yenişehir ü bâzâr yap
Zulm eyleme rençberlere her ne idersen var yap
Eski Yenişehri bari İnegöl'e dek hep varı
Kırup geçürüp ağyârı Bursa'ya dek yık tekrar yap
If some states signs a non-aggression pact and then break it, then taking some reparations is still gracious.
You forgot to mention that janissaries DID NOT keep connection to their parents. It was forbidden. So positives of giving your child to turks voluntarily are rather questionable.
Fun fact: They actually DID stayed in touch with their families but as Janissaries wasn't allowed to leave the capital they could only send letters to them, there are also instances that Janissaries sending money to their families or back to their villages to build new stuff in the area they grow up.
bro if you knew how much people is there as parents that will see this as a good deal you would say the opposite. Back than child was free human power and just seen as a farmer thats why they don't collect them from cities.
Sokollu Mehmet was not ethnically Serb as far as known, his origin is a bit unclear, and even unclearer when we take the amount of propaganda that came out of SANU. We do know that he came from Bosnia, and Bosniaks at that time still practicted Christianity of different denominations in evident numbers. His cousin Balak Mustafa Pasha was described as a Bosniak. We also do not know what Makarije Sokolovic was to Mehmed Pasha. Sokolovic in Mehmed Pasha's name simply means that he came from the village of Sokolovici. Makarije could have been anything to him, it is unclear.
But it is right that SANU did a lot of effort to demonise the Ottomans while also desperately trying to claim personas such as Mehmed-pasha.
The reason why there is no Ottoman Empire today, it’s because of “Women”. I don’t care what you say, I know it because I am a Turk but not Ottoman.
Osmanlı olamamışsın belli. Güdük kalmışsın...
I am Romanian, from 1400 we had to burn the fields, poison the wells and hide in the mountains.Yes children were kidnapped and taken to slavery. We fought constantly and we were never conquered and made part of the Ottoman Empire, but we did had periods of beong a vassal state. We had to pay tribute that meant gold and young boys for the Ottoman army. I
am just at 4 min but do not rewritte history, because truth always prevails.
Sen tarihi heralde filmlerden öğreniyon😂 Osamanlıda yeni çeri demek iç güvenlik yani polis demekti yeni çerilerin askerlikle hiç bir ilgisi yoktur ve önüne gelende yeni çeri olamaz bazı sınavları geçmen gerekirdi GT beyinli anladınmı? Savaşlarada sipahi akıncı vs. askerler giderdi yeni çeriler az kişi giderlerdi ve sadece padişahın güvenliğini sağlarlardı gerçek budur öyle kalkıpta gerinizden tarih uydurmayın
never conquered? Blud how do you thing gypsies got on your land in the first place lmao. they migrated after ottomans lol
@TP_ERK We were never part of the Ottoman Empire, we were not a province,no Mosks build on our land, no harems, no Ottoman rulers. Gypsies migrated everywhere in Europe.
@@magdalenavalentinastegaru8531 İnsan eti yiyen yamyam Romanya 😁 Osmanlı 400 yıldan fazla Romanya'da hüküm sürdü
1400-1878 varlığınızı Osmanlıya borçlusunuz
Is the Pope Catholic?
The answer is yes and no amount of Turkish propaganda can hide what happened.
Lmao
Exactly. We don't need this revionistic bs, if you're from the Balkans, you know from folk tradition the horrors of the Yenitsar system. Losing your children, blood tax. We shall never allow such a thing again.
Bruh 🤣
@@mehmetkaral8863 we could have been bros lol I could be speaking Turkish right but y’all f’d up big
you didnt even watch the video havent you 🤣
Romanian kings that defeated the Ottomans: Mircea the Elder against Baiazid. Iancu of Hunedoara, Vlad Dracul the Impaler, Matei Corvinus, Stefan the Great of Moldova- his sword from the last battle is still hold by Turkey in museum.Mihai the Brave against Sinan Pasa. Constantin Brancoveanu forced to see his 4 sons decapitated in front of him before being murdered because he will not convert to islam.
The list goes on until we fought the 2 Crimean war and then allied to Russia and cross the Danube to free the Serbians and Bulgarians too in 1878.
.
And you still speak your native language, imagine if ottomans were Americans or Spanish and you are the Inca And Aztec people xD You see how genuinely fair Ottomans were? They Controlled 27 nations and they still speak their languages and they still believe in their religions, Ottomans could simply turn WHOLE eastern europe to Muslims FORCEFULLY. Lucky you that Ottomans were not Americans or Spanish, there could be no Romanian, Serbian, Ukrainian, Slovakian, Bulgarian, Greek, Arab, etc etc on earth now
@@CyranoBebret Do you understand that we were not conquered but had a status switching from vasal state to independence ,but not a province?
@CyranoBebret Americans? Who got conquered by them? You need to learn history. You can not compare the tribes in America with Romanians, that were a great kingdom before the birth of Christ , Burebista called the Killer of Celts pushed back celts further than Austria. We do speak a latin language after the Roman Conquest.
@CyranoBebret The Ottomans were so fair that we say to this day in normal conversations - Do not hurry, the turks are not coming.
@ If Ottomans were spanish they would wipe romanians and romanian language just as they did in today's mexico, or if Ottomans were British They would wipe Romanian language just as they did in Africa where you can't find native language, If Ottomans were Americans, they would extinct WHOLE romanians and or force them to convert, You simply lucky to be colonized by Ottomans, in exchange they protect your Gens, Your language, Your nation, you simply do still exist as Romanian because of the taxes you paid to Ottomans (p.s in exchange of TAXES they did not serve in military so Ottomans sacrificed their lives to protect your nation against your lovely european enemies) But lets be an ignorant and hate Ottomans, evil guys they are NAZIS! worst than ADOLF HITLER, infact the only evil is Ottoman and if Turks were not exist the life would be happy and gay and carried away by Romanians, The only problem that prevented Great Holy Romanian Empire to scale and be the greatest power even today is simply bad turks, yeah it all make sense when i put your glasses on
Yes they did
Oh yeah buddy when making a claim you should give evidence 😉 and it's funny coming from an Arab who betrayed the Ottomans and destroyed the caliphate by siding with the UK, one of our worst enemies
Du hast keine ahnung wo hast du studiert wie viel geld hast du bekommen um diese lügen zu erzählen schäm dich
Der hat im Israel gestrudiert, nur zum sagen, vorsicht :P pass mal auf
Was ist also Ihr Beweis? Hat Ihnen Ihr Eigentümer von der AFD davon erzählt?
Of course Turks did! Just watch the most popular Turkish Episod, which is called "The Magnificient Century"
You are using a soap opera as a source?
@Kozkayn It is based on facts. In fact, the authorities tried to stop it
Cehaletin çok büyük
Thank you