Talk:Devşirme

message: Hi, I read in this article ("History" section), the following line:
"children of the rural Christian populations of the Balkans - particularly Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs, and northern Greeks"
Question: We are talking about the 14th-15th centuries. Is there any source that cites the existence of a people called "Macedonians" separate than the Greeks of that time?
It is completely out of context that there is a reference to a "Macedonian" population at the times we are talking about. No reference at all and we can only assume and not prove that there was any such population, which constitutes (I dont know the exact term you use in here) a POV statement.
Further more, the link that is attached to the word "Macedonians" directs to a page that includes (I quote):
"Macedonian refers to different population groups"
including Greeks and Bulgarians that are already mentioned in the first sentence ("particularly Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs, and northern Greeks").
This way, the use of the term "Macedonians" in the sentence, is clearly reffering to the modern day people that claim to be Macedonians and not to those that at the 14th-15th centuries were actually residing at the lands of Macedonia and were called Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Vlachs etc, but not Macedonians.
195.251.32.42 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this considered accurate or misleading? 

message: The following "The devşirme system humiliated non-Muslim societies controlled by the Ottomans and was resisted." should be removed for factual inaccuracy. Although some people wanted to avoid having their children drafted into this service, in places such as Bosnia, families made special deals to have their children drafted into the Devsirme system, because it guaranteed upward mobility. In 1515 1000 Bosnians bribed officials to have their children taken as devsirme. (Malcolm, Bosnia: A Short History pg 46) also referencing (Sugar, Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule) and (Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire). This statement should be removed. --Kammun1st (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement has POV issues, as it implies that the system was intended to humiliate Christians, rather than just simply provide manpower for the Ottoman State.  Furthermore, the citations are unreliable and heavily biased.  Andrew Bostom is fervently anti-Islamic, and has previously written stories about how Muslims caused the Crusades and are inherently anti-Semitic.  Srđa Trifković subscribes to the "Eurabia" theory and has previously claimed that Islam is inherently warlike.  As such, I would take what they say with a grain of salt.  In addition, the inclusion of "was resisted" is far too vague, as it gives no indication of the scale or ferocity of resistance.  On this basis, I am removing the sentence. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even a cursory examination of Malcolm Noel's record shows him to be at the very least, anti-Serb. Shaw is an Armenian genocide denier and has been accused of writing from a Turkish nationalist perspective (see his article). Sugar does mention this but he also thinks that the negatives of this system far outweighed the benefits. Kostja (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Language on this part is very important. The text as it is clearly means that it was intended to humiliate its subjects. However there is a dilemma based upon the fact that the subject of devshirme rose to the most powerful positions in Ottoman Empire. At many times in history the head and the main decision maker in the Ottoman empire was a devshirme. I think when we overcome stereotypes and we think of this simple fact we can understand that it did not intent to humiliate its subjects and that the "devşirme system humiliated non-Muslim societies" is clearly and simply wrong.
I agree.  In the antebellum United States, many blacks not only benefited from slavery, but they also owned slaves themselves.  Many blacks were promoted to managerial positions overseeing other workers while still remaining slaves.  And black longevity was much better in America than in Africa.  So one could say that the southern slave system was beneficial to many black people.  In regards to Andrew Bostom and Srđa Trifković, their point of view is definitely pro-European vis-a-vis Islam, and they should be excluded as sources.  I will now go to the article on American slavery and edit it to make sure that the article is not judgemental POV nor overly anti-slavery.   192.40.24.4 (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resisted Comment - Devşirme system humiliating the people 

message: Is it true that the children would not be forced to convert to Islam? I was under the impression that they would be forced to convert. Indeed, if they were to serve in the military they must have been Muslims as Christians were prohibited from bearing arms in the Ottoman Empire. Does anyone have a source for this?
::no need to force to convert to a religion becouse they are too young to be a member of one. So I think statement is true but misunderstandable.
:::the first writer is correnct. They were forced. It was effectively mass conversoin. They were obviously not to 'too young' as they were trained to fight. Through almost the whole history they couldnt carry weapons unless they Muslim.
:::Small number of Devshirme was used to fill Jannisaries. All of those those forced to convert. Jannisaris were all Moslem. There rest comprise infantry and certainly Devshirme was used to fill ranks of low value, high causualty rate troops.
:::On another note the conflation of Devsirme with Jannisary which one sees in the paragraphs in the article that begin with "Training of these acemi ocağı ..." and "Upon reaching adulthood, ..." create a very innacurate picture. The assertion that most or any but a tiny minority were trined in "calligraphy, theology, literature, law and languages" 
is simply innacurate.
:::Also conversion was effectively forced as if done by the family before the annual "gathering" it exempted against Devshirme.
:::Also Murad I did not insttute the Devhirme simply because he needs more troops. He is the first Ottoman Sultan faced with such a large number of Christian subjects and this is a way to convert them or through battle loss alter the demographics. 72.75.23.3 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Very poor Muslim families in the Anatolia would see the devshirmeh as a means of saving their children from poverty. Such children would not forget their origins completely, and they might have supported their original families financially. I will write more details as soon as I find better resources on the topic. --C6H12O6 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No this should not have been added. Again it is a false identification of Jannisary with Devshirme. You are refering to the Jannisary corps. the phenomena of Moslem Turks being allowed to entering the Jannisaries is well know because it had a political effect. The corps were to have loyalty only to the Sultan. The introduction late of some children from Turkish families into Jannisaries created some otehr loyalties and problems with interference in the Sultinate. Again you are refering to Jannisary history not devshirme.22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devshirmeh not only from Christian children 

message: Hi all, since Devshirmeh is not an english word (this is English wikipedia) and Devshirmeh can be translated into English i suggest the articles title be translated. Thoughts? Aristovoul0s 12:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plese dont add irrelevant OR. --A.Garnet 12:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, and devshirmeh is a word used in English, so it is an English word, it does not need to have Latin/French/German roots. Please see this and this. By the way, Devshirmeh is not Turkish, Devşirme is Turkish. DenizTC 13:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not found the word in any english dictionary so far. Aristovoul0s 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Denizz, what do you suggest as translation of the word? Aristovoul0s 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: The article states that the boys were taken between the ages of 12 and 16. The Serbian-language version and Bulgarian-language versions claim, respectively, between the ages of 10 and 16 and 8 and 10. The only English-language reference for this article says that they were taken between 8 and 10. Serbian folklore usually suggests between 7 and 14, which is more logical than the upper suggestions as its easier to brain-wash a young mind. I'll attempt finding clearer references.
Use of Muslim Children
  I was reading Rhoads Murhpey's Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700 and he cites a case where Muslims might hve been used in the Devshrime, though it is as a footnote.  I'll summarize the passage.  He states that a order went out concerning the devshirme for the year 1666 in the areas of the central and western Balkans.  The target was 300-320 persons.  In the footnote to the passage it says that both Muslims and Christians were taken for this recruitment.  I'll quote the footnote.  This is in the third chapter.
    "See the facsimile of the document in John K. Vasdravellis, Klephts, Amatoles and Pirates in Macedonia During the Rule of the Turks, 1627-1821 (Thessaloniki, 1975), pp. 112-14 (doc. no. 10).  The directive suggests that on this occasion, in contradiction to previous norms and practices, provision was made for the quota to be divided on an equal basis between Christian youth on the one hand and Muslim volunteers from Albania and Bosnia on the other."
   This is only the second history book I've read on the Ottoman Empire, but the use of Muslims in this case seems strange.  Should this be included in the article?
   Also, another of his footnotes says "As a method of recruitment the devshirme was finally abolished in the early part of Ahmed III's reign."  The source is V.L. Menage, Encyclopedia of Islam Vol. 2, p. 212.   Ahmed III would put the date between 1703 - 1730, not the 1648 stated in the article.  Anyone able to clarify this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.191.114 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of the janissaries upon being enslaved 

message: Hi, I'll start editing the article, removing all emotional/POV statements and replacing them with historically accurate sentences and citations. This issue has long been used by propagandists as an excuse to defame the Ottoman Empire, so it is no surprise that it is riddled with half-truths and emotional baggage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliobella (talk • contribs) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Sources and POV 

message: "This negative view of the devsirme systems is challenged by other scholars who note that especially in the context of that period of history the devsirme system was no were near as bad as other brutal forms of slavery that Europeans and later those European on the American continent would use.  They note that many children taken under the devsirme system were able to reach high level positions within the Ottoman state and attain much wealth and thus cannot correctly be termed "slaves" again they write on the devsirme individuals; Some of these were trained for government service, where they were able to reach very high ranks, even that of Grand Vezir. Although members of the devshirme class were technically slaves, they were of great importance to the Sultan because they owed him their absolute loyalty and became vital to his power. This status enabled some of the 'slaves' to become both powerful and wealthy."
*1.The "reference" does not say "scholars" challenged this "negative view" and no scholars are mentioned nor is there an author to this "reference"
*2.The statement, "the devsirme system was no were near as bad as other brutal forms of slavery that Europeans and later those European on the American continent would use.", is not supported by this "reference"
*3.This "reference" is being used as a rationalization of devsirme, as indicated by the wording above, which is not supported.
Continued addition of this paragraph(WP:SYN & WP:OR) and "reference" will result in the notification of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC link  

message: I deleted some of the references which were clearly written in a racist and islamophobist tone. Current version emphasizes the merit system, and includes info on the training of devshirme at Palace and other schools.  Please note the purpose of devshirme is raising an elite group of statemen. Only those who are not able are recruited to Janissary or became ordinary soldiers. I also would like to add the diagram in the article. See   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corlumeh (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is not written law here. I do not like nor care for your veiled accusations of racism. You removed 6 references without any explanation other than racism and islamaphobia. I would like an explanation how the BBC source you deleted was a racist source, just for starters. Else your sanitizing of this article is cherry-picking information from a source. Simply giving one side(ie.Ottoman-side) of devsirme is complete POV-pushing in every sense of the word. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Islamophobic version 

message: I was just reading the köçeks page, which was fascinating.  That page mentions:
:They were recruited from among the ranks of the non-Muslim subject nations of the Turkish empire, such as Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Roma and others. They were boys taken from their homes via the Turkish practice of blood tax.
("Blood tax" is a link to this page)
But on this page, I see no mention of köçeks.  Danregan (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a published source that links Devsirme with Koceks? If so, please feel free to add it! --Defensor Ursa 19:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of köçeks 

message: A new section to calmly discuss any outstanding issues with the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How about starting with the removal of the silly "By the 1650s there were more than 50,000 Janissaries who lived as homosexuals and practiced strict military discipline" claim. Just because the Janissaries were (in theory anyway) required to be celibate doesn't mean they were all suddenly homosexuals. Or is living without an attached harem of concubines or camp followers, or without regular visits from (or to) prostitutes, or living within a regime that orders such things to be forbidden (regardless of what was happening in practice), some new definition of "living as homosexuals".  Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outstanding issues with the article 

message: Is there any reason to have Devshirme in the Ottoman Palace School separate from Devşirme?--Zoupan 16:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devshirme in the Ottoman Palace School