by Emmet Scott
Fig. 12. The main slave routes in Africa during the Middle Ages
Whilst such depredations continued into the early nineteenth century, there was a little improvement towards the end of the seventeenth century, when European navies commenced regular patrols of the western Mediterranean and launched retaliatory actions against the pirates strongholds in North Africa. However, the ships and coasts of Christian states without such effective protection continued to suffer until the early years of the nineteenth century, and it was only after the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna in 1814-5 that the European powers agreed upon the need to suppress the Barbary corsairs entirely. After this several punitive attacks against Algiers and Sale in Morocco were launched by the British navy, which almost, but not entirely, destroyed their ability to raid. Nonetheless, so deeply ingrained was the tradition among the inhabitants of the region that even then there were occasional further incidents until the French invasion and conquest of Algiers in 1830.
At the height of their activities the Barbary States were so powerful that nations including the United States of America paid tribute in order to stave off their attacks.
Fig. 13. A slave market in Sudan, 1876-79
In addition to slaves from Europe, the Ottomans also imported vast numbers of captives from black Africa. Again, the numbers involved are impossible to ascertain with any certainty, but it was without question several millions over a period of four to five centuries.[14] Most of these unfortunates were taken from east Africa, mainly modern Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Tanzania. Their fate mirrored that of Europeans similarly enslaved. Notwithstanding the millions of Africans imported into Constantinople and Anatolia during these centuries (roughly between the fifteenth and nineteenth), it is notable that they left barely a trace of their existence in the genetic makeup of modern Turks. This, a fact frequently noted by commentators, speaks of the appalling treatment suffered by these creatures before and after their arrival in Constantinople. It is also certain that large (perhaps vast) numbers of babies of mixed race born to black slave women were simply killed by their Turkish fathers.
If the women imported into the Ottoman domains were destined either for the sex slavery of the harems or as harem attendants, the fate of the men and boys was perhaps even worse. These were either castrated and made to perform the functions of eunuchs or sent to work as galley slaves – truly a fate worse than death. As regards the “operation” which rendered young men and boys as eunuchs, it is perhaps too obscene to describe in anything but a pornographic publication. Suffice to say that the death rate after the operation, either through infection or loss of blood and trauma, has been estimated at 90%. In short, for every thousand eunuchs in the Ottoman Empire, there were nine thousand youths and boys who died in agony; and at any given time there were many thousands of eunuchs.
An article published in the Journal of the Anthropological Society of London in 1871, shortly after the great emancipation of the slaves of America had occurred, looks in an unapologetic way at the Muslim tradition of slave-holding and comes to the conclusion that slavery was inherent to and an essential part of the Islamic faith. Needless to say, such an article could not possibly be published in our times in a similar “respectable” publication:
“... it must be taken into account that this great demand for Negro slaves is based upon reasons far above fashion or fancy, as slavery is inherent in the religious and social system of Mohammedanism, and is congenial to the ideas and customs of Mussulman nations. This assertion that slavery is inherent in the very system of Islamism will startle many who believe in the compatibility of that antiquated system with modern civilisation. The arguments, however, which I am going to bring forward cannot fail from establishing such a fact as an axiom, putting it thus beyond the pale of controversy. I will therefore prove that slavery is inherent in the religious system; inherent in the social system; and, also, congenial to the ideas and customs of Mohammedan nations.
“One of the earthly rewards which the Koran holds out to the victorious Moslem is that of reducing to bondage his foe, and of disposing of him as he chooses; his soul excepted, everything belongs to the conqueror, even his dead body. The religious and political system of Mussulmanism [Islam] being based on the principle of perpetual war, Djehad [jihad], enticements for the present and for the future life constitute an essential part of the system, and the right of possessing slaves is one amongst them. This right is of course transferable, as any other title to property is; therefore the dealer who has made the acquisition of a slave from the original proprietor, the Negro conqueror, or the Arab kidnapper, commits, legally, his right to any customer (a Mussulman of course) who may bid the highest price. According to the Koranic law, such is the hold of the master over the slave that no earthly power is allowed to interfere between them; the master is answerable only to the Almighty for the manner in which he treats his slave. This un-limited power exerted over the slave is often the cause that masters take with impunity the lives of their slaves. The authorities, in such cases, either ignore or feign to ignore the event, because, legally, they have no right to interfere. According to the Koran, the only persons who may legally claim blood for blood in criminal cases are, either the nearest relations of the deceased, or (in case of a slave) his master. Now, in an instance of this sort, it is not likely that a master should present himself, asking from the tribunal justice for the blood of the slave he has himself slain. The Mussulmans, as a mass, are very tenacious of this right of holding slaves, and they will not allow that an infidel can indulge in such a luxury. As for European philanthropists, who try to put a stop to such a practice, they heartily wish them at the world’s end.
“Having briefly explained the theory of slavery as it is established by the Koran and understood by its followers, I will now come to the second point, and show how slavery is a social necessity amongst Mussulmans; to be convinced of this, one must bear in mind that in Mohammed's system, religious tenets and social laws are twisted and impasted together, forming, of the whole concern, a thorough gordian knot. It is on account of these difficulties, of a technical as well as of a practical nature, that the action of modern ideas always meets in the Mussulman element with an inert mass which never yields to persuasion, but only recoils before pressure. And what other explanation can be given of the great obstacles Sir Samuel Baker avows to have met with in the execution of his scheme for the suppression of slavery? According to Lord Houghton's statement, made before the Royal Geographical Society, ‘the Egyptians did not seem to be disposed to support any such undertaking of Sir Samuel Baker’s as the suppression of slavery, for the very simple reason that it is through the slave trade that they obtain a constant supply of domestics for their households.’ The discovery is a good one; but if this is so far true for the Egyptians, it is the same for the Turks, the Persians, and all other nations who live under the same system. Yes, this avowal of Sir Samuel Baker’s discloses the secret of the demand for Negro slaves: a supply of domestics is required to keep up the harems of the high and middle classes of Mussulman society, and Negritia [black Africa] must pour forth a constant supply of slaves. And this, because slaves are as much an essential part of the harem system, as the harem itself is of the religious and social system of Islam. The seclusion of women is for the Mussulman what one of the ten commandments is for the Christian; but how can that seclusion be enforced, if all the members of the harem are not submitted to the pressure of the same bondage? One or two women cannot, evidently, be kept tightly under lock, while their maids and attendants are free. Slavery is the natural consequence of seclusion. The Mussulman religion once adopted, its system must be carried through; there is no alternative. If the Mussulman is to remain a Mussulman (I mean even of a medium standard, and not merely a bigoted one) he must protect the sacredness of the conjugal tie by shutting up his wife or wives in the best manner he can. Wives are, therefore, cut off from the outside world by all sorts o
f contrivances, amongst which is that of having slaves instead of free-born servants, who could serve as mediums to dangerous ideas and still more dangerous customs. It is evident that if the attendants of the harem were such, not only the hold of the master over them would be of little efficacy, but the outer world might become acquainted with scandals of all sorts. To employ slaves is by far more convenient. For this end, the prudent Turk takes good care that the slave he buys should have his eyes tied up, a phrase which means that the first quality which a slave must possess is to be blind to the tricks and disorders of his master. Once in the harem, the white or Negro slave is submitted to the same system of seclusion as her mistress or mistresses are. A circumstance which renders the use of slaves indispensable, and forms an obstacle to the employment of free-born female attendants, is the formal injunction of the Koran to the effect that, not only the face, but the hands also, of a free-born Mussulman woman are to be concealed from strangers. (The Sherihat [Sharia] orders that the upper part of the hand is to remain concealed. As for the inside, a woman can show it; otherwise she could not even beg alms for her relief.) Is it possible that a servant maid could serve about the harem, day and night, thus muffled up, fearing lest the master of the house should let his eyes fail upon her face or hands? Even if the maid happened to be not very particular on this point, custom, the fear of comments, and the disapprobation of her relatives, would prevent her from violating ostensibly the laws of Mussulman religion. It is easy to understand, then, how people should object to employing girls wrapped up like so many bogies in white veils and sheets. The employment of Christian women has been thought of, as their religion would remove the inconvenience above stated, but the Mussulmans strongly object to it on grounds of self-preservation against the encroachments of the Christian element. The few Pashas who have employed Christian servant girls, adopted this course from motives of policy with the object, I mean, of gaining in the eyes of Europeans.
“Having so far shown that slavery is inherent in the religion and social system of Islam, it remains to be seen how slavery is congenial to the ideas and customs of Mussulman nations. It is one of the characteristics of Orientals to lean towards despotism, whether it be actively or passively. The same annals which record the names of the despots who have crushed the East under their feet, testify to the servility of their subjects. Slavery has never had very repugnant features in the eyes of Orientals. The Turk is far from being an exception to the general rule: by instinct, in his own limited sphere, he must be either a despot, or the servant of a despot stronger than himself. Nothing can better satisfy the vanity of a Turk than to look upon himself as the master of some human being; as he contemplates two or three slaves standing silent and with folded arms before him, the Turk rises infinitely greater in his own estimation. This feature of the Turkish mind is tangible, and can be traced not only in the customs of the people but in their very idiom, common sayings, and proverbs. For instance, if, during the course of familiar conversation, a Turk wishes to say something in the shape of good omen, he will say, ‘Kull kiolleh shaibih olah’ which means that the person in question may be lucky enough to become the master of numerous slaves. From the cradle, vaticinations of this sort are constantly made by mothers and nurses to their babies, while singing them to sleep; one of those verses ends in this way, ‘Kull alaik hep bundah,’ the meaning of which is, ‘Male slaves, female slaves, all will belong to him.’ Another remarkable thing of this sort is, that the phrase, ‘your servant,’ votre serviteur, is never employed by the Turks, but ‘your slave,’ ‘the most abject of your slaves,’ etc. In all such phrases, the word slave is employed instead of servant. On the strength of such evidences, I do not hesitate to assert that the slave holding passion has its roots in the very heart of the Turks, and that it is congenial to them as well as to the other Mussulman nations.”[15]
The above description of slavery in Islam stands in stark contrast to the utterly unfounded and frankly disingenuous assertion of Bernard Lewis that slaves in Islam had “rights.”[16]
[1] Trevor-Roper, op cit., pp. 178-80.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary
[3] Apostolos Vacalopoulos, Origins of the Greek Nation – The Byzantine Period, 1204-1461 (Rutgers University Press, New Jersey, 1970), p. 73.
[4]Ibid.
[5] Dimitar Angelov, “Certains aspects de la conquête des peuples balkaniques par les Turcs,” Byzantinoslavica, 17 (1956), pp. 236, 238-9.
[6] See for example John R. Schindler, Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al Qa’ida and the rise of global jihad (Zenith Press, 2007), p. 23; Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West: Hellenic self-identity in the modern age (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), p. 112; Andrew G. Bostom, “Jihad Conquests and the Imposition of Dhimmitude – A Survey” in Andrew G. Bostom (ed.) The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Prometheus Book, New York, 2005), pp. 41-46; Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet: Islam; History, Theology, Impact on the World (Regina Orthodox Press, Boston, 2002), p. 97.
[7] The custom of impaling prisoners, for which Vlad Tepes (the “Impaler”) became notorious, was learned by him from the Turks, when he was a hostage in Constantinople. This is not generally known, and, once again, is seen as a typical example of medieval European barbarism.
[8] Alan Fisher, “Muscovy and the Black Sea Slave Trade,” Canadian American Slavic Studies Vol. 6 (1972), pp. 575-94.
[9] Cited from Daniel Pipes, http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/193802
[10]Ibid.
[11]Ibid.
[12]Ibid.
[13] See www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml#two
[14] The essential reading here is Ehud Toledano, Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East, part of the series Publications on the Near East (University of Washington Press, 1997).
[15] “On the Negro Slaves in Turkey,” Journal of the Anthropological Society of London, Vol. 8 (1870-1871), pp. 85-96, quoted from www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/sesquincentennial comparisons black slavery in america and ottoman turkey.html#ixzz2i5S3UTnQ
[16] Lewis, What went Wrong? p. 85.
9
Islam and The Age of Discovery
The years following the capture of Constantinople were character-ized by the inexorable expansion of Turkish rule in Europe. It is true that, for a while, Ottoman ambitions were checked by the dynamic leadership of the Hungarian warrior John Hunyadi. The latter inflicted a series of defeats on the Turks, culminating in the destruction of their army at the Siege of Belgrade in 1456; and though Hunyadi died of the plague in the immediate aftermath of the siege, he bequeathed a powerful and stable Hungary to his son Matthias Corvinus, whose reign marked the end of Turkish expansion for a generation. But King Matthias' rule proved to be a temporary respite: his death signaled the renewal of Ottoman aggression, and their crushing defeat of Matthias' inexperienced successor Louis II at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 marked the end of Hungary as a great power and the commencement of a centuries’ long crucifixion of her people.
In the hundred years following Mohacs, the Turks renewed the attack again and again, striking into the heart of Europe, with repeated expeditions against Austria and even southern Poland. These enterprises brought Ottoman arms to the gates of Vienna for the first time in 1529. Simultaneous with the effort to overwhelm the Hapsburg lands, the Sultans also directed their attention westwards, to Italy and even to Spain. Indeed, a key aim of all Ottoman rulers, after the fall of Constantinople, was the subjugation of the capital of the Western Empire, Rome. And Turkish intentions in this regard were signaled within a year of the taking of Constantinople, when Mehmed II launched a full-scale invasion of Italy. As it transpired, the expedition floundered during the prolonged Siege of Otranto, in the extreme south of the Peninsula, where 900 of the citizens were slaughtered following t
heir refusal to embrace Islam. The arrival of a massive Turkish force on Italian soil caused panic throughout Europe, and the Pope made preparations to flee north of the Alps. The Ottomans’ failure to crush the power of the Empire in central Europe brought them back on the offensive in Europe’s “soft underbelly” in the second half of the sixteenth century. Thus in 1571 the Sultan Selim II gathered together a gigantic naval force with the intention of subjugating Italy. To counter this Pope Pius V succeeded in bringing together the Holy League, an alliance comprising forces from Austria, Spain and the Italian states. Rather than await the arrival of the Ottoman fleet in Italy, the Christian navy advanced to meet it off the shore of Greece, and a great battle was fought near the isle of Lepanto.
Fig. 14. The Battle of Lepanto
The Battle of Lepanto temporarily halted Turkish plans for the conquest of Italy and Western Europe, but it by no means removed the threat completely. A year later the Turks had constructed another equally large fleet.
It is difficult to convey in a few sentences the sense of gloom which prevailed throughout Europe on the eve of Lepanto. Almost every year for two centuries the Ottoman sultan had renewed the assault upon Christendom with all the resources at his command. During the course of the sixteenth century alone Hungary and Croatia periodically witnessed the arrival on their soil of vast Turkish hosts bent on pushing the sultan's empire into the very heart of Europe. Again and again Austria and Poland found themselves in the utmost danger. Several smallish towns in Hungary and Croatia, such as Eger and Güns, could afterward boast of defenses no less astonishing than anything accomplished by the heroes of Hellas in the epic war against Xerxes. The sieges of Güns (Hungarian Kőszeg) in 1532, and Eger in 1552 deserve special mention. In Güns (modern Croatia), a force of 800 men, with no cannons and few guns, under Nicholas Jurisich, managed to hold off an enormous Ottoman army of something between 120,000 and 200,000 men. After a siege lasting 25 days the Turks abandoned the attack and moved on towards Vienna. The losses they sustained at Güns however eventually compelled them to abort the Vienna campaign.