A Critical Examination of Ottoman Slavery: Was It ‘Better’ than European Slavery?

Slavery, in its many forms, has been a fixture in human history, and the Ottoman Empire was no exception. As a vast and multicultural empire spanning three continents, the Ottomans had a diverse system of slavery that included various practices, most notably the devshirme system, along with other forms of servitude. On the other hand, slavery in the transatlantic slave trade and European feudal systems took on different forms, with their own justifications, structures, and consequences. This post critically examines Ottoman slavery in comparison with European slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, questioning whether Ottoman slavery was in any way "better" than its European counterparts.

1. Ottoman Slavery: A Multifaceted System

The system of slavery in the Ottoman Empire was deeply integrated into the structure of society, economy, and politics, affecting people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds. There were several forms of slavery, including domestic slavery, military slavery, and the infamous devshirme system.

1.1. The Devshirme System

One of the most distinct forms of slavery in the Ottoman Empire was the devshirme, which operated primarily from the 14th to the 17th century. This system involved the recruitment of Christian boys from the empire's territories in the Balkans and other regions, who were then converted to Islam and trained for various positions, including in the Janissary corps (elite soldiers) or as administrators. The devshirme system was a form of military slavery that allowed the Ottoman sultans to maintain a loyal and highly skilled military force.

• Recruitment and Training: Boys between the ages of 8 and 18 were taken from their families, usually without consent. Once in the Ottoman Empire, they underwent rigorous Islamic education and military training.

• Conversion and Loyalty: The boys were converted to Islam and became devoted to the Sultan, who controlled their destinies. Their loyalty was to the Sultan above all else, which often made them more loyal than ethnic Ottomans, who might have had conflicting interests.

• Privileges and Downside: Though the boys were slaves, they often enjoyed privileges that many other slaves or common people did not. They received good food, education, and a salary, and some even rose to prominent positions in the Ottoman administration. However, the system was still fundamentally coercive, as these young men had no agency in their recruitment.

1.2. Other Forms of Slavery

In addition to the devshirme, the Ottomans had other forms of slavery, including:

• Domestic Slavery: Many enslaved people were employed as servants, household workers, and concubines. These slaves could come from various regions, including Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Caucasus.

• Agricultural Slavery: Some enslaved individuals were used as laborers on farms and estates, often in the empire’s more remote regions.

• Sexual Slavery: Like many empires of the time, the Ottomans also had a system of concubinage, in which women, often enslaved, were kept for the sexual pleasure of the ruling elite.

Despite the potential for upward mobility within the devshirme system and the relative comfort some slaves experienced in Ottoman households, slavery still functioned as a dehumanizing institution that stripped individuals of their freedom, identity, and agency.

2. European Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade

In contrast to the Ottoman model, European slavery, particularly the transatlantic slave trade, was on a much larger scale and had far-reaching economic and social consequences. European powers, especially Britain, Spain, France, and Portugal, were deeply involved in the slave trade from the 16th to the 19th centuries. The transatlantic slave trade specifically targeted Africans, who were forcibly removed from their homeland and sold into labor slavery in the Americas.

2.1. The Scale and Brutality of the Transatlantic Slave Trade

• Human Cost: Between the 16th and 19th centuries, it is estimated that 12 million Africans were forcibly transported to the Americas. The journey was brutal, with many dying in the Middle Passage, the perilous journey across the Atlantic.

• Dehumanization: The transatlantic slave trade was based on the belief in the racial inferiority of Africans. Enslaved people were viewed as mere property, stripped of any identity or rights. They were subjected to grueling labor in plantations, mines, and factories, with little hope for freedom or upward mobility.

• Economic Exploitation: European empires profited immensely from the slavery-based economy in the Americas, with sugar, tobacco, cotton, and other products being cultivated through forced labor. This trade was an essential part of the European economic system during this period.

2.2. European Feudal Systems: Serfdom and Slavery

Before the rise of colonial empires, feudalism was a common system of labor in medieval Europe. While not identical to slavery, serfdom involved a form of coerced labor that shared several characteristics with slavery.

• Serfdom: In the feudal system, serfs were bound to the land and were forced to work for their feudal lords. While serfs were not technically considered property, they had little freedom and were often subject to the will of the landowner. Serfs could be taxed heavily and were often subject to harsh conditions.

• Social Hierarchies: Both slavery and serfdom in Europe were justified through rigid social hierarchies, where certain groups were seen as inherently inferior or subjugated by divine will. However, unlike the transatlantic slave trade, serfs often had legal protections and could eventually buy their freedom, while slaves in the Americas had no such options.

3. Comparing Justifications and Consequences

3.1. Justifications for Slavery

Both the Ottoman and European systems justified slavery in different ways, but they often shared the view that certain groups were inherently suited to servitude.

• Ottoman Justifications: Ottoman slavery was often framed within the context of Islamic teachings and the need to maintain a loyal military force. The devshirme, for example, was portrayed as a method of ensuring loyalty to the Sultan, and some argued that it was a form of social mobility for non-Muslims who had few other opportunities. Additionally, some saw it as a civilizing mission, whereby enslaved boys were educated and integrated into Ottoman society.

• European Justifications: In the transatlantic slave trade, slavery was justified on the basis of racial hierarchies, where Africans were seen as "inferior" and thus suited for forced labor. The institution was also deeply tied to capitalism and the exploitation of resources in the Americas. European thinkers and theologians often argued that slavery was divinely ordained, with enslaved people seen as "heathens" in need of Christian conversion.

3.2. Consequences and Legacy

While both the Ottoman and European systems had profound consequences, their impacts were different:

• Ottoman Slavery: The impact of Ottoman slavery, particularly the devshirme system, led to the development of a loyal and skilled military elite that played a pivotal role in the empire’s expansion. However, the system also reinforced the subjugation of conquered peoples and reinforced the hierarchical nature of the Ottoman state. Moreover, while some devshirme recruits rose to prominence, the system remained a form of coercive servitude, with little possibility for true freedom.

• European Slavery: The transatlantic slave trade’s impact was more devastating, resulting in the brutal exploitation of African peoples, the establishment of racial inequalities that persist to this day, and the creation of a racially segregated society in the Americas. It was a foundational element of the Atlantic economy and led to the displacement and dehumanization of millions of Africans.

4. Conclusion: Was Ottoman Slavery ‘Better’?

The comparison between Ottoman slavery and European slavery reveals stark differences in scale, brutality, and justifications. While Ottoman slavery, especially the devshirme system, had a somewhat structured and at times even beneficial aspect for certain enslaved individuals (particularly those within the military or administrative elite), it was still fundamentally a system of coercion and lack of personal freedom. In contrast, European slavery, particularly the transatlantic slave trade, was marked by racial exploitation, extreme violence, and an entire economic system built upon the suffering of millions.

Ultimately, while the Ottoman system might have offered certain privileges to some, it cannot be considered “better” than European systems of slavery. Both systems were exploitative, and both left lasting scars on the societies affected by them. The impact of Ottoman slavery on history cannot be ignored, but neither should the horrors of European colonialism and racial slavery, which have had far-reaching and deeply harmful effects on global history.