JANISSARIES AND MAMLUKS
RESEARCH AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY M WARNER
APRIL 13, 2017


FOR A GREAT DEAL MORE FASCINATING INFORMATION ON JANISSARIES, WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO TODAY’S WORLD IN THAT IT BEARS DIRECTLY ON THE DANGEROUS CULTURAL MISHMASH THAT RULES MOST OF THE MIDDLE EAST AT THIS TIME DUE AT LEAST PARTLY TO THE CATASTROPHIC FALL OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AFTER WWI. IN CASE YOU HADN’T NOTICED, I’M VERY BIG ON BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND INTERESTING SIDE ISSUES. I HAVE LEARNED TO PUT VERY LITTLE OF THIS KIND OF INFORMATION INTO MY “NEWS AND VIEWS” COMMENTARY.

AS FOR WHY I COLLECT IT, EVERY BIT OF THESE DIGRESSIONS ARE LINKED TO A NEWS STORY IN SOME WAY. VERY OFTEN A STORY HAS UNKNOWN PIECE OF INFORMATION OR VOCABULARY IN THEM, SO I AUTOMATICALLY GOOGLE THEM. SOME OF THEM GRAB MY ATTENTION IN SUCH A WAY THAT I REALLY HAVE TO COLLECT THEM IN A SEPARATE PLACE AND DEVELOP THEM AS ANOTHER RESEARCH TOPIC. I’VE COME UP WITH SOME PRETTY GOO THINGS THAT WAY. IN ADDITION, I HAVE NOTICED THAT IF I LINK NEW INFORMATION INTO A KIND OF STRUCTURE, I WILL REMEMBER A GREAT DEAL MORE OF IT. SO, RATHER THAN WANTING LESS INFORMATION, I WANT MORE. I PICKED THIS UP IN AN ARTICLE STUDYING DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETAL ISSUES.

BOTH THE JANISSARIES AND THE MAMLUKS WERE THE ARMY SOLDIERS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND EGYPT, RESPECTIVELY. THEY WERE ACTUALLY CLASSES OF SLAVE WARRIORS. THE JANISSARIES WERE UNDER RESTRICTIONS SUCH AS BEING PROHIBITED FROM MARRYING EXCEPT TO SPECIFIC SLAVE WOMEN WHO THE MASTERS PICKED, AND SOMETIMES WERE FORCED TO REMAIN CELIBATE. THE IDEA OF HOW A HUMAN SOCIETY SHOULD BE STRUCTURED HAS REALLY CHANGED.

KEEP IN MIND THAT THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE CONTROLLED MOST OR POSSIBLE ALL OF THE MIDDLE EAST UNTIL PRETTY RECENTLY – IN THE EARLY 1920S. WWII THEN FRACTURED THAT ANCIENT ORDER AND THE LAND WAS DIVIDED UP AMONG EUROPEAN POWERS, WITH ISRAEL BEING SET UP FOR THE JEWS. I HAVE NOTICED THAT MODERN ISLAMIC PEOPLE ALSO ARE RIGIDLY CONTROLLED ON MARRIAGE AND OTHER OVERLY PERSONAL WAYS THAT US CITIZENS WOULD NOT WANT TO LIVE UNDER. OF COURSE, NOW, IT’S THE WOMEN WHO ARE LIKE PRISONERS IN THEIR HOME.

ON JANISSARIES IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, GO TO http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Janissary

ON THE TIMELINE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, GO TO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuwanQyGKHw.


JANISSARIES AND MAMLUKS

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4h39gp/what_were_the_differences_between_the_mamluks_and/

QUESTION: What were the differences between the Mamluks and Janissaries?

submitted 11 months ago by The Manchurian

Obviously they existed at different times in different places. But I mean, they were both slave-soldiers of the ruler of an Islamic state. Were they key differences in how they were recruited, trained, and their duties?

12 commentsshare
all 12 comments

sorted by: best

[–]Castabar 20 points 11 months ago*

Hey there - I'm actually writing a Grad thesis in part on slave soldiers in the Islamic world - this is a very very interesting question.

To start, Mamluk is a pretty broad category while Janissary is very specific. Mamluk is more or less interchangeable with the word ghulam (pl. 'ghilman') and describes the slaves (of primarily nomad Turkic origin) who were brought in to serve as a standing military force in the major courts of the Islamic World after the Abbasid revolution shifted the military focus away from traditional Arab tribal organization towards more centralized modes of power. While Janissaries are clearly made with this practice in mind, they have their own distinct identity owing to their context.

Key things in common:

Esteem in Society - Although slaves, both groups occupied a high place in their respective societies. As the backbone of their dynasties' military power (especially given the relative unreliability of levies and 'feudal' troops like Ottoman Sipahi - who often proved undisciplined and varied widely in quality) it was crucial to the Sultan (or Caliph, Emir, what have you) that these warriors were loyal and content. If the relationship between the sovereign and his slave soldiers was strong, they served as a deterrent against conspiracy from within as well as against attack from outside - and their more professional nature made campaigns of expansion much more viable. Levies and 'nobles' (such as the sipahi) needed to return home at some point to manage their households (or be artisans/farm for the lower classes) but a mamluk or janissary's sole responsibility was to fight for the Sultan.

Collective Identity/Caste - Both types of slave soldiery had powerful esprites de corps and strong cohesion among themselves as a caste. It is for this very reason that 'mamluk' dynasties such as the eponymous ones in Delhi, Iraq, & Egypt rose to power as well as the Ghaznavids and Khwarazmians in Khorasan/Persia. Loyalty to the crown and loyalty to the brotherhood were - in practice - very close to equal in the eyes of many of these slave soldiers. This often resulted in a strong aversion to reform - which at times led to fearsome & renowned slave soldier forces (including even the Janissaries later on by the early modern era) to become increasingly obsolete in the face of new strategies and paradigms.

Meddling in Politics - For both the Ottomans and their predecessors, the slave corps served a praetorian role in every sense of the word - including meddling in dynastic affairs and acting as kingmakers. Without the support of the slave-soldiers, one could never hope to be Sultan. There's even an interesting practice among the Janissaries where they would protest a Sultan they disagreed with by refusing to partake in their daily meal 'from his table' - symbolically rejecting his legitimacy. Despite being slaves, they were just as involved in politics as anyone else in the court.

Part of the Sovereign's Household - As hinted at above, Janissaries and Mamluks were paid directly by the Sultan (fitting given that they were his property) so as to minimize any chance of conflicted loyalties. Ideally, this rendered a strong Sultan much less beholden to his governors and to local elites. Local rulers knew as a fact that to rise up would be to bring the slaves of the Sultan down upon them while they might very well be able to muster little more than local militia or mercenary forces. Indeed from its very inception the practice of having a ghulam corps is intimately linked to curbing the power of noblemen or local elites.

Key Differences

Recruitment –

Whereas Mamluks and other older forms of Ghilman soldiery were drawn from slave markets on the fringes of the Islamic world (chiefly Khorasan, but the Balkans, Circassia, Africa, and India were also fair game) and were by a large margin embedded in old Turkic military traditions, the Janissaries were recruited by way of a systematized bureaucratic levee known as the Devshirme. The Devshirme consisted of- a tribute of christian boys in Anatolia & the Balkans at or below the age of 18 collected as a tax. These Christian boys were then brought back to the capitol to be trained in warfare & converted to Islam. Curiously, there was a tradition barring a single family from having multiple sons taken per Devshirme cycle but even so many families offered up more sons in the hopes that they could achieve great things through the Devshirme. (It's also important to note that slaves from the Devshirme would not necessarily end up as Janissaries - those more suited to policy, theology, or scholarship were sorted to serve as court slaves & bureaucrats rather than as soldiers.)

Military Focus - Since the Mamluks were steeped in the martial culture of the nomadic Turks, the cream of their military corps were cavalry based - heavily armored & skilled in bow, lance, sword, and mace. By contrast, the Ottomans (being Turks themselves) started out with a strong cavalry force in the form of the Sipahi and thus developed the Janissaries as an infantry force both to expand their combined-arms approach to warfare and to create an effective counter to the power of the cavalry-based local nobility. Turks & other Muslims were specifically barred from the Devshirme for centuries in order to maintain the separation of power. In addition, Janissaries were barred from marriage and producing heirs until the reforms of Selim II in 1566.

Religious Zeal & Sufism - Another important note of contrast was that the Janissaries were far more steeped in traditions of sufism and mysticism than their earlier counterparts (Fun fact - the janissary headdress actually represents the sleeve of a sufi mystic who blessed the corps on its founding). The Sultan was established both as their physical master/owner and as their spiritual guide (very much like the Qizilbash of Safavid Persia), though in later phases of the empire this dynamic waned.

Revolt vs. Usurping - Although as I said before the Janissaries meddled frequently and irritatingly in Ottoman politics, they never seized power directly for themselves. It even took until Sultan Osman II's attempt to disband the corps in 1622 for them to even threaten a Sultan's life - and according to Ottoman accounts it was their killing of Osman which eventually lead to their disbandment in the 'Auspicious Incident' of 1826. In the end Sultan Mahmud II was forced to use a seperate modernized army he had raised in secret (the Sekban-ı Cedit) in conjunction with the Sipahi (whom had long despised the janissaries) to put down the ensuing revolt of over 100,000 Janissaries.

By contrast, numerous mamluks had usurped the throne for themselves when their masters became weak - some founding dynasties (especially like in Egypt) that lasted for centuries.

I hope that helps some. If you have more specific questions or sources I'd be happy to weigh in or share. Also - as a fun parting note - the Mamluks fought the Janissaries numerous times, both during the Ottoman conquest of Egypt and their subsequent revolts against the Sublime Porte :D



JANNISARY – MEANING*

Janissary

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS725US725&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=janissaries+definition

jan·is·sar·y
ˈjanəˌserē/
Noun historical
plural noun: janissaries

a member of the Turkish infantry forming the Sultan's guard between the 14th and 19th centuries.
a devoted follower or supporter.


FOR A GREAT DEAL MORE FASCINATING INFORMATION ON JANISSARIES, WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO TODAY’S WORLD IN THAT IT BEARS DIRECTLY ON THE DANGEROUS CULTURAL MISHMASH THAT RULES MOST OF THE MIDDLE EAST AT THIS TIME –THE CATASTROPHIC FALL OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. IN CASE YOU HADN’T NOTICED, I’M VERY BIG ON BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND INTERESTING SIDE ISSUES. I HAVE LEARNED TO PUT VERY LITTLE OF THIS KIND OF INFORMATION INTO MY “NEWS AND VIEWS” COMMENTARY. AS FOR WHY I COLLECT IT, EVERY BIT OF THESE DIGRESSIONS ARE LINKED TO A NEWS STORY IN SOME WAY. VERY OFTEN A STORY HAS UNKNOWN PIECES OF INFORMATION OR VOCABULARY IN THEM, SO I AUTOMATICALLY GOOGLE THEM. SOME OF THEM GRAB MY ATTENTION IN SUCH A WAY THAT I REALLY HAVE TO COLLECT THEM IN A SEPARATE PLACE AND DEVELOP THEM AS ANOTHER RESEARCH TOPIC. I’VE COME UP WITH SOME PRETTY GOOD THINGS THAT WAY. IN ADDITION, I HAVE NOTICED THAT IF I LINK NEW INFORMATION INTO A KIND OF STRUCTURE OF KNOWN AND RELATED ITEMS, I WILL REMEMBER A GREAT DEAL MORE OF IT. SO, RATHER THAN WANTING LESS INFORMATION, I WANT MORE.

ON JANISSARIES IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, GO TO:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Janissary

ON THE TIMELINE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, GO TO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuwanQyGKHw.