Military Review

Janissaries - Brief Chronicles of the Raging Guard

43
“The captured youths — the infidels (that is, non-Muslims) —hould be enlisted in our army,” such advice was given to the Sultan Orhan by the Vizier and the Chief Military Judge Allaeddin. The idea was carried out under Sultan Murad I (1359-1389).




Shel 1365 year. The figure of Sheikh Bektash stood before the youths sprawled on the ground. He approached the neighbor of them, raised his hand above his head, and, having dawned on the sleeve of his robe, said: "May you be yeni cherry." That was the beginning of the "new army" (Tur. Yeniçeri), a special corps of the Janissaries. They were distinguished by a headdress from the rest of the Ottoman empire’s servicemen — a white felt cap with a piece of cloth hanging from behind, resembling the shape of the sleeve of the robe of their “godfather” Bektash.

The armament of the Janissaries was originally composed of spears, sabers and daggers, and the boiler was used as a banner for cooking. Some military ranks were also borrowed from the "kitchen" lexicon. So, the company commander was called "chorbaji", i.e. "cook".

Initially, the number of corps "new warriors" did not exceed one thousand. Then every year they recruited another thousand people. Under Suleiman I the Magnificent (1520-1566), the Janissaries in the army were up to 20 thousand. The size of the salary depended on the length of service. At the head of the case was aha. They were chosen by the janissary man, who passed all the janissary positions, starting with the lowest. Aha was given the special honor to remove shoes from the Sultan when he entered the mosque. In one of the rooms of the Janissary barracks a throne was set for the sultan.

The strict order of Sheikh Bektash to the first brigade of the Janissaries "to show courage in battles and not to know defeats" was by no means always executed. During the campaign of Sultan Selim I of Grozny against the Iranian Ismail Shah (1514), the Janissaries grumbled, tried to return home and tried to make a rebellion. In response, the sultan executed the janissary aga, severely pacified the disobedient and began to appoint agu himself. At the same time, the post of assistant aha was introduced, to which several other chiefs were subordinate. However, this did not help turn the corps into a perfectly obedient tool.

Beginning with the reign of Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror (1451-1481), the Janissaries made it a rule to demand cash gifts from the Sultan when he entered the throne. At the same time, despite the awards, the riots of the corps also became the rule against rulers objectionable to them.

After the death of Mehmed II, during the janissary uprising, the Grand Vizier Mehmed-Karaman was killed. With their active support to the throne in 1481, the second son of Mehmed Bayazid II was erected. However, in the 1512 year, the janissaries asked him out, confirming the already mentioned son Bayezid Selim I. on the throne.

In 1524, the rebellious Janissaries looted the customs in Istanbul, the home of Grand Vizier Ibrahim and other major dignitaries. Sultan Suleiman I the Magnificent personally participated in the suppression of the rebellion, killed several janissaries with his own hands, but still had to give in and pay off the rebels. However, it did not help him too much. Further, realizing his strength, the Janissaries openly said: “Suleiman is old and stupid, and he needs to retire. His son Mustafa will do better, and we will be more honored. And if the Grand Vizier resists to it, we will remove his head” . Toward the end of the reign, Sultan Suleiman, who was ill, was even forced to order to carry himself regularly to the gallery along the shores of the Bosphorus, so that the residents of the capital would not give in to the rumors spread about his death by the Janissaries.

Has got from the Janissaries and the subsequent sultans. They rebelled under Selim II the Drunkard (1566-1574); overthrown Ahmed III (1703-1730); deposed Selim III and ... "pierced" on Mahmoud II (1808-1839), who decided to get rid of such an unreliable "guard".

The next uprising of the corps was skillfully provoked, first by the establishment of a new standing army, and then by its demonstrative parade in front of the janissary barracks. On the night of June 15 1826, the Janissaries accepted the challenge. At the Meat Square (Atmaydan) of Istanbul, regimental boilers were put up, pogroms began in the city. The houses of the great vizier and then aga were looted and burned. 12-year-old son of the latter brutally murdered.

The Janissaries were opposed by the population of Istanbul and the clergy. Their extermination was officially declared a godly deed, and death in battle with them was a feat for the faith. The troops loyal to the Sultan occupied the streets, and the cannons struck the Janissary barracks. Wooden buildings flamed. There was no mercy for anyone. About a thousand prisoners were locked up at the Istanbul Hippodrome, where members of the military court arrived. There was only one sentence - the death penalty by suffocation. The massacres continued for several days, the bodies of the rebels were dumped into the sea. The boilers of the Janissaries were publicly soiled with dirt and sewage, the banners were torn, and the famous boy's felt cap was dragged along the streets without any respect and thrown to the dogs.

Mahmud II, consolidating the victory, issued a firm about the elimination of the janissary corps and the creation in exchange of its "Victorious army of Mohammed." By the same command it was forbidden to utter the word "Janissaries" loudly. The barracks on Myasnaya Square lay in ruins. The janissary mosque, the coffee houses that they usually visited were destroyed, and even the marble tombstones adopted for the janissary because of the felt hat depicted on them, similar to the wide sleeve of Sheikh Bektash's robe.
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Uruska
    Uruska 2 November 2012 08: 50
    14
    Yeah, he was a very respected commander. Past all Janissary positions, starting with the lowest! That is right. He knew all the features of controlling soldiers. And with us, what? MO in general did not serve in the army. Many received general epaulettes without leaving the military district, not to mention participation in the hostilities.
  2. Lavrik
    Lavrik 2 November 2012 09: 09
    +6
    By the way, the education and subsequent enrollment of captured young men in the army was practiced much earlier - during the time of the Roman Empire they did this to the sons of the captured leaders of the barbarians (mainly Germans). Then they, who knew their country, were sent to restore order in the territories captured by Rome.
  3. understudy
    understudy 2 November 2012 10: 19
    +8
    Similar formations are "Mamluks" in Egypt. Even the film was like that, with open mouths they watched in childhood. wink
    1. hommer
      hommer 2 November 2012 12: 39
      +1
      Yes, there is such a film - "Sultan Baybars" is called.
      Beybars is a real historical person, a native of the Kipchak (Polovtsian) steppes. Now Kipchaks are one of the large Kazakh clans.
      1. predator.2
        predator.2 2 November 2012 12: 51
        +4
        The Bashkirs also have a Kipchak tribe, they are residents of the Kugarchinsky and Kuyurgazinsky districts of Bashkiria. hi
      2. Rink
        Rink 3 November 2012 12: 17
        0
        Quote: hommer
        Yes, there is such a film - "Sultan Baybars" is called.

        Baybars? Some kind of Zaporizhzhya surname ...
        Compare with Killer, Vertiporoh, Deriveter or Dobryvecher. And these are not made-up, I really knew people with such surnames.


        And by the way:
        "Some military ranks were also borrowed from the" kitchen "lexicon. Thus, the company commander was called" chorbadji ", that is," cook ".

        it comes to mind that the Cossacks' military units were called cats, headed by a cat.
        1. megavolt823
          megavolt823 21 March 2017 17: 13
          +1
          in gives! and sultans from vna of Ukraine. probably after digging the Black Sea remained. and Rurik from Dnepropetrovsk. dear! well, you don’t want to know the history of Russia. you at least read the Ottoman. the Persians. the Greeks. about the wild field. Well, at least open Wikipedia. Cossacks began to fight only under the command of these or those. when the horde completely broke up, at least they began to raise their heads. and they became warriors only under kings. Cossacks and Kazakhs have a different word and meaning. here’s all crap blowing your head. Vladimir, Oleg, where and where?
  4. Kir
    Kir 2 November 2012 15: 23
    +6
    There are some questions, which is so brief and there are no even small excerpts from the codes of the janissary corps, the latter was translated into Russian and published in the series "written monuments of the East"
    And now the question is for the Kazakhs, after all, you explain the ethnic group or union of tribes, the only thing you are sure of and I know this:
    1) Alma-Ata, the former city of Verny, which the former Cossack village of Vernaya, I know for sure, since some of my roots are from there
    2) The current territory is not very Kazakh, especially in the north. and indeed, if memory does not change artificially created education at all.
    3) It seems that you used to be Uighurs close to your ethnic group, and you all belong to the Türks, and the Bashkirs were of a Nagai kind and even the Tatars seem to produce themselves from Bulgaria.
    Simply put, on what principle the division was made, if on the basis of blood, etc. then it is against science ......., but if purely politically and by any folklore ........ easier to say a myth and only .
    1. predator.2
      predator.2 2 November 2012 15: 34
      0
      Quote: Kir
      and the Bashkirs were a kind of Nagai

      Dear, Bashkirs, how the people were formed after the collapse of the Great Turkic Haganate in the 8th century, and the legs as part of the Golden Horde in the 13-14th centuries are related peoples, similar language and customs.
    2. Rinat.kz
      Rinat.kz 2 November 2012 16: 19
      -6
      1) Kazakhs, like the Bashkirs, were formed after the collapse of Deshti Kipchak. Kazakhs began to name themselves as an ethnic group after the khans Zhanibek and Kerey were slaughtered with auls from the shores of the Syr Darya to the east in Semirechye. All tribes that exist today in Kazakhstan call themselves Kazakhs.
      2) Exactly the turnover of all the lands that the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan occupies is Kazakh + most of the northern territories remained within the Russian Federation, etc. Ombi (Omsk) Orynbor (Orenburg)
      3) Never were the Uighurs close to the Kazakhs, the Kyrgyz are closer to us
      1. Kir
        Kir 2 November 2012 18: 49
        +1
        Quote: Rinat.kz
        Orynbor (Orenburg)
        3) Never were the Uighurs close to the Kazakhs, the Kyrgyz are closer to us

        1! Regarding not the proximity of the Uighurs, look at least for the answer to my question of Hommer, and not only he but also your Turkic sites claim this!
        Now, according to Orinburg, the name of the city is German - it means "fortress on the river Or"!
        And if you continue to go in this way, then Baikonur is a sacred place of proto-Türks for communication with higher powers! And the question was asked specific according to what principles kinship was established, if not according to biomedical criteria, then this is all from the field of myths and legends, though like the history of most peoples of the world!
      2. Weyland
        Weyland 4 May 2017 00: 24
        0
        Quote: Rinat.kz
        The Uighurs were never closely related to the Kazakhs, the Kyrgyz are closer to us

        But not much. The Uzbeks (nomadic, essno), Crimean and Polish-Lithuanian Tatars, Hungarian Kumans and Nogais are much closer.
        what kind of birth simultaneously among Kazakhs and Kyrgyz? EMNIP, only Naiman, Merkit and Alban. Wherein:
        Naiman clan - is a part of Altai, Bashkirs, Hungarian Kumans, Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Kyrgyz, Crimean Tatars, Polish-Lithuanian Tatars, Uzbeks, Uyghurs;
        clan mangyt - is part of the Hungarian Kumans, Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Crimean Tatars, Nogais, Polish-Lithuanian Tatars, Uzbeks;
        clan jalair (Yalair, Zelair, Salair) - as part of the Hungarian Kumans, Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Crimean Tatars, Polish-Lithuanian Tatars, Uzbeks;
        Kipchak clan (Kypshak, Kypsak) - composed of Altai, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Crimean Tatars, Polish-Lithuanian Tatars, Uzbeks;
        clan Congrat (Konyrat, Kungrat, Kongyrat) - composed of Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Crimean Tatars, Nogais, Polish-Lithuanian Tatars, Uzbeks;
        genus merkit (merkut = golden eagle) - in the south. Altai, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Karakalpaks, nomadic Uzbeks, etc .;
        the Albanian clan (Ablan, Alman) is a part of Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Kyrgyz, Turkmens, Uzbeks.
        the Argyn clan is a part of the Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Tatars (Crimean, Siberian and Chulym), Uzbeks;
        Uysyn clan (Uyshin, Yushin, Yushun) - to the Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Crimean Tatars, Uzbeks;
        Thus, the composition Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Crimean Tatars include all of these genera, and the genera Mangyt and Naiman - each at the same time at least seven (the study is incomplete, I did not find any information about Nogais and Karachay-Balkars), and at least Jalair, Kipchak and Congrath six peoples!
        And about
        Quote: Rinat.kz
        All tribes that exist today in Kazakhstan call themselves Kazakhs

        exactly what in The present time - and even 120 years ago, as the Brockhaus-Efron encyclopedia testifies, the Kazakh almost always called the question of ethnicity only kind, occasionally - zhuz.
    3. Marine One
      2 November 2012 18: 26
      +2
      Quote: Kir
      There are some questions, which is so brief and there are no even small excerpts from the codes of the janissary corps, the latter was translated into Russian and published in the series "written monuments of the East"


      Dear, time is sorely lacking. The work has to work. smile I will return to this topic a bit later. There are many more interesting things.
    4. bart74
      bart74 18 November 2012 23: 31
      0
      There was NEVER Kazakhstan! Watch the film "War" by Balabanov, where the main character of the Chechens says - you Russians even fucked up Kazakhstan! Kazakhstan, if I am not mistaken, until 1949 was part of the RSFSR as a republic.
      But I think the loss of Kazakhstan and other republics is temporary
      1. eterra26
        eterra26 April 21 2017 13: 56
        0
        Do you understand the provocateur? write nonsense so that later others with foam at your mouth will explain your idiocy to you?

        I urge others not to comment on this
  5. hommer
    hommer 2 November 2012 16: 21
    +5
    Kir,
    Quote: Kir
    And now the question is for the Kazakhs, after all, you explain the ethnic group or union of tribes


    The ethnogenesis of the Kazakh people is a big topic, a comment will not fit if you are sincerely interested, I can advise Gumilyov "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe", You can Akimbekov - "The Phenomenon of the State of Genghis Khan", though our Natsiks do not like Akimbekov, the work is unbiased, objective.
    Kir,
    Quote: Kir
    Alma-Ata is the former city of Verny, which is the former Cossack village of Vernaya, I know this for sure since some of my roots are from there


    It’s wonderful that one of your roots is from Almaty. smile
    Before the founding of the Cossack village, there was a settlement Almaly, confirmed by numerous archaeological finds. And before that, most likely there was something. Agree, in such a paradise that no one has ever lived - it does not happen. And probably a lot of blood was shed for this land.
    Quote: Kir
    The current territory is not very Kazakh, especially in the north. and indeed, if memory does not change artificially created education at all.


    This debate is about nothing, everyone will have their own truth. Our shoviks shout about the lost Kazakh lands in the north where Kazakhs live. There were also many disputed territories in the south. At present, Kazakhstan along the entire perimeter has delimited borders with all its neighbors.

    Uigurs, Bashkirs, Tatars - Turkic peoples related to Kazakhs.
    Uzbeks generally have a bunch of births that coincide with Kazakh births.
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 2 November 2012 20: 38
      +3
      hommer. In general, Uzbeks have a lot of clans that coincide with Kazakh clans. In addition to the fact that Kypchaks are found among many Turkic peoples, I give a list. Kypchaks are found among: Kirghiz, Kara-Kalpaks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Nogayev, Bashkir, Kazan Tatars, Crimean Tatars. I quote from M. Tynyshpayev "Great disasters" .. p. 38, Alma-ata, Zhalyn, 1992. There is information on many genera.
      1. hommer
        hommer 2 November 2012 22: 32
        +1
        Thank you, dear Nagaybak.
        Everything is logical, common Turkic roots.
      2. Shuhrat turani
        Shuhrat turani 7 November 2012 11: 52
        +1
        The Kypchak steppe is not limited to Kazakhstan ... The entire steppe zone from Altai to the borders of Hungary was controlled by the Kipchak-Polovtsy ... Then the clans divided and nomadic Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Nogais appeared, many clans became part of the unrelated Turkmens (Oghuzs), diverse tribes of Turkestans (Karluk group) now called Uzbeks ...
  6. yurasumy
    yurasumy 2 November 2012 20: 14
    13
    The author has very mediocre knowledge about the life and customs of the Janissaries.
    The Janissary corps was the backbone of the Ottoman (and correctly Ottoman) Empire. In fact, not all were taken to the Janissaries, but only Slovenians. And no one else. Further, all the janissaries took a course in a special school. The most talented were promoted to government positions or became officers of the Janissaries themselves. The rest served as enlisted personnel. The fact is very curious. that a career in the Ottoman Empire was possible only by becoming a janissary. All viziers, regional rulers came from the janissary corps (this applies to the 15-17 centuries. Then this rule was violated). Therefore, some noble "Turks" by hook or by crook tried to arrange their children in the Janissary corps. It's good if you are Slovenian by origin. And if not. There are cases when they arranged for their sons to live in Slavic families for a lot of money, in order to then open the way for them to the Janissaries. I will not say any more that the life and customs of the Janissaries strongly resemble the customs of the Zaporozhye Cossacks. The decline of the Janissaries began after the preaching of Wah-Habism triumphed in the Sultan's court. Late 18th century. After that, their fate was sealed. Which resulted in their defeat in 1826. This did not happen by chance and not at the whim of the Sultan. Until the end of the 18th century, there was no religious persecution in the Ottoman Empire. All religions were under the auspices of the Sultan. Only with the advent of wah-khabism (this gangrene of the Muslim world), persecution for the faith began on the territory of the empire. Passions ran high with each passing decade. And in the late 1810s - early 1820s, the massacre began. Greece, Balkans. There is no data on Egypt, but I think it also actually separated from the empire at this time. Somehow quiet and imperceptible. The massacre took on such proportions that even Europe was forced to intervene (which did not happen often with these cannibals). And Russia, of course. The attempt at a janissary riot in Istanbul was the last attempt to stop this orgy of Wah-Habism. And such a cruel reprisal against them is by no means accidental. Look at the modern Wah-Habits. The same handwriting. But unfortunately unsuccessful.
    1. ikrut
      ikrut 3 November 2012 00: 23
      +1
      Hm. strange ... Why are you being minus ??? As for me - it’s quite sensible and interestingly written ...
    2. mnn_12
      mnn_12 3 November 2012 02: 07
      +3
      Interesting information. The Bulgarian people have memories of the Yanichars related to how they were recruited - children were taken from their families by force. From there and from their exceptional cruelty in extinguishing riots there are so many bad memories of the Enichars. We must not forget about the dark side of Jenicharism ... Such actions continued after the official liquidation of the Yanichora corps in the Otomon Empire.
      All religions were under the auspices of the Sultan. Only with the advent of Wah Habism (this gangrene of the Muslim world) in the territory of the empire began the persecution of faith.

      Likely the real sunset of the empire began with this too - the peoples ceased to be relatively equally placed in it. The results are known to everyone ...
      The information you provide is interesting ...
      1. yurasumy
        yurasumy 3 November 2012 12: 07
        +2
        Read The Janissary Notes. There, at the very end, about how the Janissaries treated the Bulgarians. The document is generally believed to be dated to the 16th century. Perhaps you will change your mind. This book is very interesting in that the author himself very critically described the customs of the Janissaries, because it was intended for reading by Christians. So in this book not a word about the "atrocities" of the Janissaries. The public opinion of the Bulgarians is now formed under the influence of the troubles that befell them in the 19th and 20th centuries, and then were transferred to earlier times. I mean, if this happened in the enlightened 19th century, what happened in 16. You will not find written primary sources about atrocities at that time. On the contrary, the system in the Ottoman Empire was famous for its fairness and tolerance towards other confessions (according to the justice of the laws, the author of the Janissary's Notes puts the empire in the first place (unattainable for any European country at that time)). The first religious wars shook the empire at the beginning of the 19th century (that's why they are fresh in the memory of the people. And all this is the fault of Wah-Habism, which swept the country just then. According to the census of the population of Istanbul in 1886, in my opinion, up to 40 people lived in Istanbul. percent of Christians. Some Armenians were 250 thousand out of 800 thousand. This is the official statistics. And this is after the cleansing of the Orthodox in the 1820s and 1850s. And there were also Jews, and not all Muslims were united.). In Europe, throughout the 16-17th century, there was a bloody religious massacre, which by the 19th died out due to the fact that the population ceased to attach any importance to the religious factor. Therefore, in Europe nationalism was invented and continued to cut each other along ethnic lines. Still. Once again, I ask you to read not the official propaganda, but read the primary sources. And you will change your point of view.
        1. mnn_12
          mnn_12 3 November 2012 18: 03
          +1
          Dear Yurasumy,
          I cannot find this reason for completely understandable reasons. If you have any kind of Russian or English translation in some kind of computer format so that I can look at it I would be very grateful to you. Your arguments seem rational to me. O non-repudiation of any cruelties - this cannot be a weighty argument. Who would say bad for themselves? A lot depends on the fate of a particular person - where he was, when, etc ...
          All the same, I doubt one thing - all the Turks blame nationalism for the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, but do not wonder whether it was the root cause or is it a result? You didn’t even comment on the fact that the corps of the Janisaries was formed from the children forcibly taken from their families. And they were not recruited in this way from Turkish families, do you understand? And then you say that nationalism is to blame. Well he came from the west but he found a favorable environment for development and here the question "why" remains unanswered ...
          How would you like Esli and your son and ego to forcibly separate you and you? And you expect that this type of empire could be stable? Of course, this may not be the only reason for the collapse of the empire, but it is an illustrative example for one of many others ...
          1. yurasumy
            yurasumy 5 November 2012 10: 39
            +1
            Dear mnn_12.
            I thought you could freely download this work for yourself.
            I give a link to the Russian version published in 1978.
            http://vsemirniysledopyt.ru/b/261768/read
            For those who are too lazy to read everything, I give in full only one chapter, the title of which speaks for itself. Read it. Although it’s better to read everything.
            Please note that the tax was 1 Turkish gold with 40 people. AND EVERYTHING. MORE NO LABOR DUTIES AND OTHER. Now it’s clear why there was no rebellion against the empire before the religious persecution began. But this was no longer the Ottoman Empire, but the Wah Habit.

            CHAPTER XLVI. ABOUT CHRISTIANS WHICH ARE UNDER THE TURKS,

            Turks call Christians Giaurs, and the Sultan knows the number of all who are under the rule of the Turks, and how many of them are in every land. The Sultan is paid tribute every year from every Christian head for forty aspers [357], which is one gold; a year, the sultan receives this tribute several hundred thousand. And if anyone can earn money, he gives (the Sultan) one more gold per year excluding children and women; and all this, not counting the other income that comes to him (the Sultan) in his treasury from the sea, from the land and from the silver mountains. Christians, on the other hand, give their masters, under whom they are located and whom they call the Timarerler [358], half of the Sultan's tribute, and also with a dozen heads of all cattle or grain. But they do not perform any work either on the Sultan or on their master and do not enter the service.

            If the army of the Sultan goes along its land, then none of the soldiers dare to poison the crops, cause any harm or without payment to take something from someone, even if it was not enough, which cost less than a small coin. Turkish rulers do not forgive this one to the other, not wanting the poor to be hurt [both by the Gentiles and Christians] [359]. And if someone takes it deliberately without payment, he pays his life, for the Sultan wants the poor to live in peace. Christians who are under the authority of the Sultan, must put tens of thousands of pack animals or horses, provisions, giving it with their own hands, after which they are dominated by justice, without harming them. Under such control everyone lives. [This has been going on since ancient times to the present time] [360].

            Under Sultan Murad, it happened that one woman complained about a certain passion, that he took milk in her yard and drank it. The Sultan ordered him to be seized and ripped open to his stomach to make sure there was milk in his stomach, since he did not know whether to believe him; if milk were not there, then the woman would have expected the same fate. And so the unfortunate warrior lost his life, and the woman lost milk. And this happened when the sultan was traveling from Plovdiv to the Black Sea.
    3. Horde
      Horde 3 November 2012 02: 57
      0
      The sunset of the Janissaries began after the preaching of Wah Habism defeated in the Sultan's court.


      This is so Europe managed to finally quarrel the Ottoman former Ataman Empire with Romanov Russia

      and plunge both countries into a series of endless wars. The half-blood brothers, Cossacks, Janissaries always had
      close-allied relations. The Cossacks switched to the service of the Turkish Sultan and vice versa.



      Look at modern Wah Habit. The same emphasis.


      Modern Saudi Arabia, a stronghold of the West in the East, is a Wahhabi religion. Most likely
      Wahhabist trend of Islam was artificially created by the West to conduct its
      plans in the east to escalate and maintain the hostility and hostility of the countries of the East
      and Russia. For example, the Chechen wars were financed by Saudi Arabia.
      1. yurasumy
        yurasumy 3 November 2012 12: 13
        +2
        Continuing the post. Meet me. Suleiman 1 Magnificent (for the glamorous husband of Roksolana's husband). Artist Titian 1530
        What is not a Cossack. "You will begin to study family portraits and you will believe in the transmigration of souls" -Sherlock Holmes from "The Dog of the Baskervilles". There are so many lies written about the Ottoman Empire that you do not have time to rake everything. Works for decades. Moreover, the information does not lie on the surface, but everyone is too lazy to raise it.
        1. yurasumy
          yurasumy 3 November 2012 13: 53
          +1
          We continue the theme of studying family portraits. Let me introduce the father of Suleiman 1 the Magnificent Selim 1 Yavuz (Ivan the Terrible, by the way)




          Very interesting is not it. And a mace in his hands, as a symbol of power.
        2. Blat
          Blat 4 November 2012 00: 52
          0
          Well, listen to you and a few more then the Slavs are generally Turks or vice versa, but what is the difference in principle))))))))))))))))))))))))))) already captures the spirit of reading your pearls))))))))))))))) for the gifted janissaries were represented by a rather mottled composition. There were both Arabs and representatives of other conquered peoples. Such fighting psychopaths grew out of these boys. And they really represented great strength so how trained to only kill
          1. yurasumy
            yurasumy 5 November 2012 11: 31
            0
            What makes you think that the Janissaries took someone else. There are direct indications that only the Slavs were taken (The same "notes of the Janissary"). There is no evidence that they were recruited from other conquered peoples. At the expense of fighting psychopaths - you probably read a lot of modern literature. Read any literature about them before the 18th century and I assure you you will not find anything like that about the Janissaries anywhere.
            The Slavs are certainly not Turks. If you want, I can briefly tell you how it was. Without evidence, otherwise you have to write an article. But believe me there is plenty of evidence.
            So the Ottoman Empire was essentially Slavic (that's why they took the Slavs into the service without any problems. For example, D. Vishnevetsky served for 3 years in the Ottoman army (he passed by the right of the gentry, when any nobleman could go to the service of any overlord), and then he was lured away the Polish king back. That is, there were no moral problems for D. Vishnevetsky. Moreover, no one could reproach him with anything. In the same way, he switched to the Russian service. For all his contemporaries, these were equivalent transitions. Many "Russians noblemen of the Rzecz Pospolita received their education in Istanbul. The most famous of them is B. Khmelnitsky. Historians write that he was in captivity. Only some strange captivity was. Went to the local "school". Nobody guarded him. When he wanted to return. No no information about the ransom for him. And his family had no money for the ransom.). The fact that the boys were taken by force. Again, give the source. The "primary source" is desirable, i.e. until the end of the 18th century, when these boys were actually taken. Personally, in these sources, only that the parents were happy that their son would be a janissary. Bring your own - consider.
            1. yurasumy
              yurasumy 5 November 2012 11: 33
              0
              Let's continue.
              So this empire was essentially Slavic and "Muslim" in religion. Just do not confuse modern "Islam" and "medieval." For example, in the Middle Ages there was a custom that the Gentiles are not enemies, but simply lost souls, whom you should not offend in any case, but you should also not be allowed to rule the country. In the Ottoman Empire, all religions were under the personal protection of the Sultan (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Judaism, the Armenian Church, etc.). And this is a whole heap of evidence. But in the 18th century of the territory of Arabia, a movement arose, which later received the generally recognized name of Wah-khabism (We will not even dispute about where it came from, but the ears of England behind it are visible to the naked eye).
              It was these "comrades" who began to preach the "Islam" that we are all afraid of. And in a very short time, this current swept over the Ottoman Empire. And from below began to penetrate the top of Ottoman politics. This was largely due to Russia's victories in recent wars. Therefore, first of all, this movement was directed against the Orthodox in the empire (Greece, the Balkans, the Janissary pogrom, the Massacre in the Orthodox quarters of Istanbul (yes, at the beginning of the 19th century there were such)). The bulk of these Wah-habits of the 18-19th centuries were Masoasian Turks and Kurds. Therefore, the new elite of the Ottoman Empire made a bet on them. It was precisely in the 19th century that the Turks became an ethnic-forming nation for the empire. But since the Wah-Habits cannot sit quietly without "atrocities", then after the "final solution" for the now "Orthodox" question for Turkey in 1878 (unsuccessful for Turkey, since the remaining Orthodox population with the help of Russia was freed from them ), the persecution of the Armenians began (1880-1890). There were a lot of them at that time. In the same Istanbul in the 1880s, there were 250 thousand of them out of 880 thousand of the capital's population. Naturally, the Wah-habits could not stand this. The Young Turk movement that emerged in the late 19th century was a belated public reaction to this odious trend in religion. After the Young Turks came to power in 1908, religious persecutions slowly began to subside. They began to build a secular state. The last was the massacre of Armenians in 1915, but this was already a consequence of the war and the complete defeat of the Turkish army in the Sarakomysh battle by the Russians. They just found a scapegoat out of habit. Further, after the establishment of the republic, the Kemalists firmly came to power. A completely secular regime that raised Turkey from the very bottom in 1923 to a pretty decent middle peasant in politics.
              P.S. This is what I am writing for. In the past 20 years, Turkey has again seized power by religious extremists. I think with the example of today's events (without revolutions and riots) you can understand how the quiet rotation of personnel at the top of Turkish politics took place in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The same opposition of the Kemalists of the 19th century (Janissaries), and their regular slaughter (purges of the generals now differ from those only in methods). And it won’t bring anything good to Turkey, just as it didn’t in the 19th century.
              1. Blat
                Blat 6 November 2012 00: 25
                0
                didn’t try to be treated? in janissaries they took from all the conquered peoples this is a fact. you know we think we are backward and only you there are lights and Americans are stupid and gay to you everywhere. but my people, despite what you think backwardness has kept its history .It is like you can guess about the Janissaries, but I know for sure that they were recruited from all the conquered peoples. And when the Turks sent troops to Moldova, those Janissaries were very, very dark, although the Moldovans were not completely blond. Probably the Slavs were also only negroid?))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) what you’re still right. Adam, the progenitor of mankind was more in line with modern Ethiopian. This is how genetics found out, they came to this conclusion
                and this country prisoner about whom you are a bastard. nothing country. Khmelnitsky was a hostage like children from other conquered peoples. The port practiced this. Only these children were not ordinary children, but the children of the ruler appointed by the port to these lands. And this implies that Ukraine went to Vasala at the otoman port
              2. Weyland
                Weyland 4 May 2017 22: 19
                0
                Quote: yurasumy
                After the "Young Turks" came to power in 1908, religious persecution slowly began to subside. They began to build a secular state. The last was the massacre of Armenians in 1915, but this was already a consequence of the war and the complete defeat of the Turkish army in the Sarakomysh battle by the Russians.

                Audible nonsense! Just the Young Turks (anti-clericals) were the most genocidal of the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks - while the Muslim clergy condemned these persecutions (and many mullahs hid Armenians from the rioters)
      2. Lucky
        Lucky 3 November 2012 12: 48
        -3
        It is necessary for the BRIC countries to create a military alliance, and to tear everyone to pieces, NATO and the BRIC countries and countries weren’t near so that they would observe nitrality!)
        1. berimor
          berimor 7 November 2012 21: 33
          +3
          Heard, homegrown Napoleon, first learn to write at least one word without mistakes, and then swing your saber !!!
      3. yurasumy
        yurasumy 3 November 2012 13: 55
        0
        Let me introduce the father of Suleiman 1 the Magnificent Selim 1 Yavuz (this is he too)
    4. Shuhrat turani
      Shuhrat turani 7 November 2012 11: 53
      0
      Quote: yurasumy
      The Janissaries corps was the core of the Ottoman (and rightly Ottoman) empire.

      and more correctly Osman vilayetleri
      1. Weyland
        Weyland 4 May 2017 22: 15
        0
        Quote: Shuhrat Turani
        Osman vilayetleri

        Only here on Latin alphabet Turks crossed in the 20th century smile , and before that they used arab graphics, where the name "Osman" is written through the letter ث ("sa"), which is pronounced approximately like English th. Although it is correct, of course, precisely the "Ottoman" (the name "Osman" is Persian, but it was borrowed by the Arabs in the pre-Islamic period)
    5. Weyland
      Weyland 4 May 2017 00: 12
      0
      Quote: yurasumy
      In fact, the Janissaries did not take all, but only the Slovenes. And no one else

      And the Georgians. And the Romanian with the Moldavians. And the Ethiopians. It was from the Muslims that they took only Slavs (Bosniaks) - and this was considered a considerable privilege!
      And about
      Quote: yurasumy
      some noble “Turks” tried by hook or by crook to arrange their children in the Janissary corps. It’s good if you are Slovene by origin. And if not. There are cases when they arranged for their big money their sons to live in Slavic families, so that later they could open the way to the Janissaries.
      - indeed, it happened!
  7. LAO
    LAO 3 November 2012 21: 00
    0
    Maybe someone remembers the constant wars between Ukrainian Cossacks and Turks? The works of Shevchenko even described the campaign of Ukrainian Cossacks to Constantinople. Relations between Turkey and the Ukrainian Cossacks were hostile. In Turkey, it is believed that the decline of the empire was laid by Roksolana.
    1. yurasumy
      yurasumy 5 November 2012 11: 51
      0
      There were several dozen campaigns of Cossacks on Constantinople in only one 17th century. Just do not confuse them with attempts to conquer Constantinople in the 18-19 centuries. By Russia. These were the usual robber campaigns for prey and nothing more. The largest of them ended with the capture of some castles and the robbery of all settlements for several hundred kilometers along the coast. But the Cossacks never left the coast further than a few hours of movement inland. When campaigning in Constantinople, the longest looting was a few days (until the troops of the empire approached).
      As for Roksolana, the issue is controversial. In principle, how to look. Under her husband, Suleiman 1 the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire conquered most of its dominions. She is accused of the fact that during her time (or rather her son) the custom of "removing all competitors for the throne from her path was finally established." But it is not a fact that this did not strengthen the country. It is one thing when, before Suleiman 1, the Ottoman Empire was, in fact, a rather small state. Therefore, all the pretenders to the throne very quickly and without big problems sorted out among themselves in the struggle for power. Another thing is the huge empire left as a legacy by Suleiman 1. Any claimant to the throne could strengthen with the support of the local population in some remote province. And knocking him out of there would be very difficult. And if there were several such applicants, then the collapse of such a country would be a matter of several decades (one or two rulers). Thanks to the decision of Suleiman 1 (in vain he is attributed to Roksolana. He is attributed to her only because in the end it was her son who became the Sultan. Although there are a bunch of sources that ascribe this to Suleiman himself), i.e. the destruction of all but one of the heirs, the country never fell apart along dynastic lines.
      1. berimor
        berimor 7 November 2012 21: 40
        0
        There were several dozen campaigns of Cossacks on Constantinople in only one 17th century. Just do not confuse them with attempts to conquer Constantinople in the 18-19 centuries. By Russia. These were the usual robber campaigns for prey and nothing more. The largest of them ended with the capture of some castles and the robbery of all settlements for several hundred kilometers along the coast. But the Cossacks never left the coast further than a few hours of movement inland. When campaigning in Constantinople, the longest looting was a few days (until the troops of the empire approached).


        Absolutely right!!! At the same time, Turkish-Tatar customs, names, words, etc. more and more often penetrated into the way of the Cossacks.
  8. LAO
    LAO 3 November 2012 21: 22
    +1
    Maybe someone remembers the constant wars between Ukrainian Cossacks and Turks? The works of Shevchenko even described the campaign of Ukrainian Cossacks to Constantinople. Relations between Turkey and the Ukrainian Cossacks were hostile. In Turkey, it is believed that the decline of the empire was laid by Roksolana.
  9. olo-olo
    olo-olo 3 November 2012 23: 57
    0
    It’s foolish to feed the enemy and arm him. if spared, it should have been forced to work.
    1. yurasumy
      yurasumy 5 November 2012 11: 53
      0
      So I'm trying to convey that the Slavs were not an oppressed people in the Ottoman Empire. At least until the end of the 18th century.
  10. Setrac
    Setrac 4 November 2012 00: 45
    +2
    Shevchenko works of art fiction completely.
    1. igor67
      igor67 5 November 2012 12: 10
      +2
      Setrac,
      Yak die, then cheer
      Mene at the grave
      Middle step wide
      On Ukrainian Miles,
      Shchob fallow deer broad,
      І Dnіpro, і kruchі
      Bulo is visible, Bulo is almost
      Yak roaring.
      Yak carry from Ukraine
      At the blue sea
      I believe in blood ... I’m moving away
      I fallow and burn -
      All leave, I polina
      To God Himself
      Though fiction is yours, it is said so beautifully!
      1. Weyland
        Weyland 4 May 2017 22: 32
        0
        Quote: igor67
        Though fiction in your opinion

        Of course, we are talking about his poems of a historical nature - the same "Gaydamak". By the way, what would you not quote them:
        ... Streets, bazaars
        They shouted with a corpse, drank blood.
        “We swear a little curry!
        Once again you need to rewind,
        Schob did not rebel
        Nekhreschenі, oaths of soul "
        Remind who is it about?wink
  11. yurasumy
    yurasumy 5 November 2012 11: 58
    +1
    In fact, you are wrong. Although I am not a lover of T. Shevchenko (I consider him an immoral type who died from syphilis acquired by him from promiscuous sexual intercourse). He was a talented poet and artist. In general, these people remind me of today's "dissidents". Glamor and immorality are apparently their second nature (In Russia, the same can be said about T. Shevchenko's contemporaries - A. Pushkin, M. Lermontov and not only.) Many things in the works of T. Shevchenko, without being fiction, certainly underwent artistic coloring.
  12. bart74
    bart74 18 November 2012 23: 59
    0
    Difficult question. More facts.
  13. Weyland
    Weyland 4 May 2017 00: 32
    0
    The trick is that the Turks had excellent cavalry, but there was no infantry - and it was believed that the Turks were unsuitable for foot combat in principle! laughing And you won’t storm fortresses with cavalry - so the Janissary corps was created just like elite infantry.

    "The next uprising of the corps was expertly provoked first by the establishment of a new standing army, and then by its demonstration parade in front of the Janissary barracks. On the night of June 15, 1826, the Janissaries took the call. (...) The troops loyal to the Sultan took the streets and guns hit the Janissary barracks The wooden buildings were burning. There was no mercy for anyone. About a thousand prisoners were locked up at the Istanbul hippodrome, where members of the military court arrived. There was only one sentence - the death penalty through strangulation. The massacres continued for several days, bodies and rioters were dumped in the sea "

    Six months earlier, the cavalry repeatedly and unsuccessfully attacked the Decembrists ’square - Nikolai did not want excess blood, but in the end he was forced to use artillery, which very quickly decided the matter in his favor. Mahmoud clearly took into account the experience of Senate Square - and without any slobbering humanism, he immediately used guns ...