Jump to content

Unsullied comparable to Janissaries


Recommended Posts

Pretty much nope. Jannisaries were the shit. Those guys stopped the Mongol invasions into the middle east dead in their tracks (albeit with huge causalities on both sides).

Actually, those were another group of slave-soldiers, the Mamluks.

EDIT: Ninja'ed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phalanx formations didn't fight alone in the past. They used chivalry, archers and light troops to help them, covering the flanks and giving some extra capacity of engaging the enemy, while the phalanx keep the enemy army in check at the center, bloking any attack.

The only true weakeness of the phalanx was his dificulty in keep the rigidity of his ranks in rocky terrain, opening gaps that could be attacked by the enemy - like the romans did against he macedonians in Pydna, slaughtering the phalanx.

But the Unsullied are only a joke of a phalanx: the soldiers of a phalanx are heavy infantry, not light infantry like the Unsullied.

Regarding the Janissaries, they are a slave soldiers (elite slave soldiers and privileged slaves, but slaves nonetheless) that could follow any number of roles (they are not stuck in a single role like the Unsullied) in an army of the Ottoman Sultan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, those were another group of slave-soldiers, the Mamluks.

EDIT: Ninja'ed.

Mamluks were no slaves, after they finished the training, they were granted freedom before sworn into their Lord's service

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mamluks were no slaves, after they finished the training, they were granted freedom before sworn into their Lord's service

They started as slaves. Only somebody who was bought or levied as an child-slave could become a Mamluk soldier.

And anyways, as I said in a previous post, the status of slave in the Ottoman an Fatimid Empires were nothing like the status of European slaves. You could be a minister, a governor or a general while technically remaining a slave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They started as slaves. Only somebody who was bought or levied as an child-slave could become a Mamluk soldier.

That is not true, Mamluk recruites were much older than Janissaries, from later teen to early twenty, Janissaries were technically slave of the Sultan (though I would prefer the word Servants since they had nothing similiar with the traditional concept of the slave in our standard), on the other hand Mamluk were specially granted full freedom right after they finished training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And anyways, as I said in a previous post, the status of slave in the Ottoman an Fatimid Empires were nothing like the status of European slaves. You could be a minister, a governor or a general while technically remaining a slave.

I think you need to clarify what you mean by "European" slaves here. If you're talking Rome, then slaves could fill some positions such as accounting and secretarial work, if not quite anything like minister, governor or general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not true, Mamluk recruites were much older than Janissaries, from later teen to early twenty,

OK, teenagers and young men, not children. But they were bought.

Janissaries were technically slave of the Sultan (though I would prefer the word Servants since they had nothing similiar with the traditional concept of the slave in our standard),

Yup, that's what I said.

on the other hand Mamluk were specially granted full freedom right after they finished training.

The Mamluks' status suffered many changes during their existance. They started as mere slave soldiers like those many other muslim sovereigns had (from the Slavic Guard of the Andalusian Caliphate to the Senegalese Imesebelen of the Almoravids to the Janissaries to the Mamluks), and eventually became the true rulers of the Fatimid Empire. As I said, they started as slave soldiers.

I think you need to clarify what you mean by "European" slaves here. If you're talking Rome, then slaves could fill some positions such as accounting and secretarial work, if not quite anything like minister, governor or general.

Yes, the imperial officium employed slaves as bureocrats, and every rich roman person kept slave book keepers and scribes, but they would never reach the same high status as in the muslim world, at least not without becoming freed first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...