Tinker, Tailor, Soldier:

Some Different "Hats" of the Eighteenth Century Janissary.

Historian Linda Colley once claimed that "Identities are not like hats. Human beings can and
do put on several at a time."1 If we assume that Colley is correct in this the janissaries, especially in
the eighteenth century are a good example of the phenomenon many being soldier, artisan, husband
and father all at once. Virginia Aksan and Daniel Goffman argue that "The Ottomans portrayed
themselves...in a number of different ways, some of which were their own inventions."2 The
classical Ottoman definition of society divided it into two large groups, the taxpayers (reaya, esnaf )
and the non-taxpayer (asker) classes. These asker were further divided into three subclasses;
soldiers, theologians (ulema) and bureaucrats.3 Additionally 'janissary' for all practical purposes
became a generic term for all kuls in contemporary literature and secondary scholarship.4
In Forging the Nation Colley goes on to present a British identity based on the 'self' and
'other' model which never does exactly specify how such identities are created beyond merely
classifying ones own society by making them adhere to the complete opposite of what is done in
other nations. Simon Gunn has argued that this concept of identity used in historical studies is often
too simplistic for the reality.5 Given the nature of Ottoman society the usual 'boxes' into which we
put the past in order to define it, for example nation, ethnicity, religion and language to name just a
few, are not necessarily the most useful classifications.6 However we cannot write history without
being able to classify groups, that would be an impossible task. Inversely we risk compromising
accuracy by over generalising historical actors.
1 Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837, (Yale University Press: London, 2009) p. 6
2 Virginia H Aksan & Daniel Goffman, 'Introduction', in Virginia H Aksan & Daniel Goffman (ed.) The Early Modern
Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2007) p. 8
3 Aksan, An Ottoman Statesman in War and Peace: Ahmed Resmi Effendi, (Pearson Longman: London, 2007) pp. x-xi
4 Cemal Kafadar, 'Janissaries and Other Riffraff in Ottoman Istanbul: Rebels Without a Cause?', in Baki Tezcan &
Karl K Barbir (ed.) Identity and Identity Formation in the Ottoman World, (University of Wisconsin Press: Madison,
2007) p. 124
5

Simon Gunn, History and Cultural Theory, (Pearson Longman: London, 2006) p. 132

6 See Maurits H van den Boogert, 'Defining Homo Ottomanicus: How the Ottomans might have done it themselves'
Paper presented at the SCSC in Geneva in 2009.
http://www.academia.edu/1009873/Defining_Homo_Ottomanicu_How_the_Ottomans_might_have_done_it

My intention here is to attempt to address janissary identity for it's own sake and to discuss
how janissary identity began to change through military involvement in trades and crafts. If we
assume, like Colley that human beings can 'put on' identities then it must be true that they can also
take them off at will. I intend to argue that being a janissary was the one 'hat' once put on, that could
not be removed. One of the main issues of janissary identity in terms of involvement in trade is that
in some cases histories have been written in such a way that janissaries take over the history of
trades and guilds. The history of artisans, craftsmen and guilds in the Ottoman empire is a complex
subject in its own right with many historiographical myths of its own that historians are still
working on debunking7 but there are several discrepancies that deal with military involvement in
particular.
To give one example Baki Tezcan in The Second Empire argues that the rebellions of the
eighteenth century which have come to be labelled janissary uprisings are in fact a representation of
popular discontent, so integrated were janissary interests with those of the tradesmen and craftsmen
of the empire.8 Aside from the fact that 'janissaries' by any definition would view themselves as elite
and largely segregated from the general artisan population, not least as many regiments operated en
masse within the same trade,9 artisans, at least those within guild structures, had their own forms of
protest when they felt they had been treated unfairly. The most widespread of these in the
eighteenth century was the gedik, which was proof of the right to exercise a certain craft and by the
late 1700s it had become a prerequisite for engaging in a craft. Gediks included protocols for
inheritance, for stewardship of a business if the legitimate heir was a minor or if no competent heir
could be found and for the promotion of apprentices and journeymen.10
There is a debate concerning whether or not the proliferation of gediks in the eighteenth
century was a product of crisis or prosperity. Traditionally they have been seen as artisans
7 See soon to be released Suraiya Faroqhi, Artisans and Travel in the Ottoman Empire: Employment and Mobility in
the Early Modern Era, (I.B Tauris: London, 30 May 2013)
8 Baki Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World,
(Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2010) p. 203
9

Kafadar, 'Janissaries and Other Riffraff' p. 118

10
Suraiya Faroqhi, Artisans of the Empire: Crafts and Craftspeople Under the Ottomans,(I. B. Tauris: London,
2009) pp. 119-120

desperately trying to cling to custom during a period of economic instability and competition
towards the end of the 1700s, but Faroqhi has offered an alternative explanation which claims that
the Ottoman state had made a concerted effort to revive trade after the Treaty of Belgrade, and it is
true that the empire did manage to retain many of their Asian land trading routes. Increased caravan
security combined with a flowering of skill and economic growth, particularly in the textile industry
led to lucrative trades which their practitioners were eager to protect and benefit from.11
If we refer back to Tezcan's claim that janissary uprisings were representing popular
discontent the question is raised of how far artisans participated in the uprisings because they felt
motivated to do so and how far their involvement was due to their being swept up in a military
institution to which they belonged. In terms of artisan migration into the corps every guild was
different, some willingly joined the corps as a whole while others left to the discretion of their
individual members whether or not they wished to join the military. Artisans would take on
'political' roles as individuals but guilds only did so rarely. Faroqhi has claimed that by themselves
artisans did not rebel very often but did participate in urban revolts where the main player was
another party. Thus in the writing of history craftsmen are usually seen as somewhat 'junior partners'
in these rebellions.12 This could be due to the fact that artisan representation was via individuals as
opposed to guilds or due to the tendency of historians to over emphasise military factors in Ottoman
history.
Gunn also argues that in order to be recognised identity needs to be constant over a period13
which is where dealing with Ottoman Janissaries, especially in the eighteenth-century becomes
difficult. Not only does janissary identity not fit one fixed definition but it is also not stationary.
Tezcan claims an institutional transformation of the janissaries from a military organisation
to a socio-political corporation.14 While it is true the janissaries were undergoing a 'socialisation' as
tradesmen and family men their priorities diversified as each individual pursued his own life. It is
11
Suraiya Faroqhi, 'Ottoman Craftsmen: Problematic and Sources with Special Emphasis in the Eighteenth
Century,' in Faroqhi and Randi Deguilhem (ed.) Crafts and Craftsmen of the Middle East: Fashioning the Individual in
the Muslim Mediterranean, (I.B. Tauris: London, 2005) pp. 89-90
12
Faroqhi, Artisans of the Empire, pp. 148-150, 157
13
Gunn, History and Cultural Theory, p. 133
14
Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire, p. 199

therefore hard to believe that such a group of individuals could find enough common ground to act
together. Yet historians still write about an 'order' or the 'corps' as if it was a homogeneous entity
acting in unison while I believe it may be more accurate to speak of a fragmentation as opposed to a
transformation.
Most of the issues I have discussed so far have arisen from historiographical discourse,
however that is only one of three sources which can give information on janissary identity. In
addition to historians writings we have the opinions of janissary contemporaries and also
information can be gleaned from how janissaries represented themselves. Simon Gunn further
argues in his writing on identity that "Historically, the balance of internal and external factors in the
process of identity formation is variable."15 This thesis allows for more internal, personal aspects of
identity, what he calls the creation of the 'self', than any other writings of historical philosophy. The
problem with allowing for self-definition is that it is a harder factor to clarify. Similarly with the
janissaries those who identified themselves with 'janissary' in their own minds are not necessarily
those we see always acting with other janissaries and are not always acknowledged as janissaries by
any official measure. At this stage in my research I have yet to come across self-created
documentary evidence of how the rank and file janissaries, who are my main thesis focus, viewed
themselves. So we are left with the externally imposed elements of janissary identity from which
most historians draw their main conclusions. Some success is possible with this method if we read
between the lines of the 'official' sources and manage to set them into their proper context. It is
possible to draw some conclusions on what janissaries were thinking and feeling from their actions
and participation in events such as popular revolts, however we must also be wary of actions
attributed to janissaries that have in fact become distorted by history, for example the 1703 Edirne
Event is now counted by some among the first of the many janissary uprisings of the eighteenth
century when in fact it was originally perpetrated by the armourers with the janissaries joining the
revolt later.
Many official records pertaining to the janissaries in the eighteenth century criticise them for
15

Gunn, History and Cultural Theory, p. 134

their lack of military prowess and discipline and for undertaking lifestyles which do not prioritise a
military occupation, which tells us that the janissaries were still viewed as a primarily military
institution and this is supported by the tasks Istanbul janissaries were assigned across the eighteenth
century with a great number of them being sent out to guard to guard fortresses in the Balkan
areas.16
Kafadar alludes to the development of janissary identity through their wider involvement in
commerce citing the dissolving separation between the soldier classes and mercantile elements.17
The reasons for a janissary desire to do so, late or absent pay, debased coinage, lack of warfare to
occupy them, families to support, have been well documented.18 One aspect of historians writings
on janissaries and trades is that most seem to mention either janissaries reaching out and engaging
in trades or artisans joining the corps in order to gain janissary status, wages and benefits usually
giving greater consideration to movement one way or the other. There is also the added confusion of
the change of recruitment practices at this time. For example if a silversmith who also held a
janissary wage book raised his son to succeed him in both trade and janissary position which side of
this trade migration does the boy fall? And will this be dictated by whether or not his father was a
janissary who learnt a craft or an artisan who bought a commission? Each historian will make their
own interpretations but such questions create a grey area which only hinders definite clarification.
Janissary relations with the guilds of Istanbul are a topic which Professor Kafadar has
worked upon at some length claiming in 'Yenieri-esnaf Relations' that the guilds did not seek
political autonomy but rather by their aims of registering and controlling the population functioned
as government agencies.19 Gabriel Baer on the other hand portrays the guilds as a much more
independent authority in the city claiming that janissary penetration of the artisan classes caused the
guilds to lose their hold over the urban population.20 However if we accept the argument that a
16
Mehmet Gen ve Erol zvar, Osmanl Maliyesi Kurumlar ve Bteler 2, (Osmanl Bankas Ar iv ve
Ara trma Merkerzi: Istanbul, 2006) pp. 329-330
17
Cemal Kafadar, 'On the Purity and Corruption of the Janissaries', Turkish Studies Association Bulletin,Vol 15,
1991, p. 278.
18
Jane Hathaway, 'Introduction', in Jane Hathaway ed. Mutiny and Rebellion in the Ottoman Empire,
(University of Wisconsin-Madison: Madison, 2002) p. 4
19
Kafadar, Yenieri-esnaf Relations: Solidarity and Conflict, (Unpub. MA Diss, McGill University, 1981) p.57
20
Gabriel Baer, 'The Administrative, Economic and Social Functions of Turkish Guilds', International Journal

fragmentation as opposed to a transformation occurred in janissary identity at this time the alleged
janissary monopolisation of the guilds would have required a united effort of which the fragmented
corps would have no longer been able.
The court chronicle of Esad Effendi, appointed imperial historian in 1825 a year before the
dissolution of the corps, states that "willingly or not" every guild was under janissary protection.21
Entitled 'Basis of Victory' (ss- Zafer) this account was written upon Esad's succession of the
position from a predecessor suspected of pro-janissary leanings at a time when they had dropped
out of favour. Esad writes as a participant in and beneficiary of the events he records and so is
understandably biased. His book was part of a campaign by the then Sultan Mahmud II to delegitimise the janissaries and as such says very little of the janissaries themselves save that they
were opponents of the Sultan, that was deemed enough to condemn them.22
Sar Mehmed Pa a writing in 1720 records imposters who dress and behave in the manner of
janissaries and the legitimate confusion that causes the contemporary governing class.23 It is
possible he numbers artisans and craftsmen with janissary affiliations among this number.
True to the trends of early eighteenth-century mirror for kings literature Sar Mehmed was a
proponent of reform and offered advice as to how the corruptions in janissary corps and conditions
of the working classes could be remedied. He writes in defence of the lower classes against
economic persecution and over taxation.24 However he also argues that 'the entering of the rayas
into the military class must be avoided carefully.'25 Although he uses the term sipahis when
speaking of military involvement I believe the principle is the same. He feels that the army and
commerce should always remain separate as he fears a diminishing of the artisan classes which
would negatively impact the income of the Treasury. Additionally he argues that too much
indulgence can be shown to the artisan classes and that they should not be permitted military
of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 1, 1967, p. 39
21
Donald Quataert, Workers, Peasants and Economic Change in the Ottoman Empire 1730-1914, (Ths Isis
Press: Istanbul, 1993) p. 199
22
Ibid, p. 198
23
Sar Mehmed Pa a, Ottoman Statecraft The Book of Counsel for Vezirs and Governors (Nas'ih l-vzera ve'l
mera) Introduction, Trans., and Notes by Walter Livingstone Wright Jr, Humphrey Milford: London, 1935) p. 112
24
Ibid, p. 117
25
Ibid, p. 118

adornment on their buildings or belongings, such as the symbols of janissary companies under
whose "protection" certain businesses fell.26
Hence Sar Mehmed sees artisans buying into the corps as opposed to the other way around
and condemns the artisans for this, which is slightly at odds with the way the traditional
historiography has vilified janissaries and romanticised the general working populace as victims of
their excesses. Despite the abuses he records he retains a high opinion of the corps and it's
importance stating that it 'is beyond all else the greatest of the things which are very essential and
necessary for...the Exaulted Government'.27 This suggests that despite the corruptions that historians
have traced as far back as the late sixteenth-century the janissaries still had their supporters in the
1700s. Indeed Sar Mehmed condemns those men who would pretend to be janissaries blaming
them for the bad reputation of the corps and suggesting that if a small number of men were purged
from the ranks the corps would be restored to former glory.
Similarly to the idea janissary fragmentation I have argued here Kafadar claims a similar
phenomenon among the esnaf claiming that inter-guild rivalry would never have permitted wholly
united action.28 He presents instead an image of two outsider classes creating an alliance claiming
that merely because janissaries and newly arrived migrants into the city adopted trades they were
not automatically entitled to guild membership thus creating a sub-class of artisans and merchants
he has dubbed the 'lumpen-esnaf' and it is this group he claims that courted janissary affiliation and
were, in truth, a marginal percentage of the capital's overall esnaf population.29 Professor Kafadar
has since come to believe that the situation is slightly more complex as while it was at the lowest
levels that janissary political activity manifested itself it appears that janissaries of all levels had
esnaf affiliations, yet this point does require further research to be clarified.30
In terms of changing janissary identity Kafadar seems to feel that the janissaries lost their
military character during the eighteenth century and cites two separate means of involvement in
26
27
28
29
30

Ibid, p. 118
Ibid, pp. 110-111
Kafadar, Yenieri-esnaf Relations, p. 60
Ibid, pp. 84-85
Kafadar, 'Janissaries and Other Riffraff' p. 125

trade by way of an explanation. Those are firstly the pursuit of regular trade activities and secondly
the formation of gangs to collect forced tribute from rich tradesmen. He also tells us that these
operations were mess based in the eighteenth century31 and so I believe herein lies a possible
explanation for the alleged janissary monopolisation of some guilds. If they operated their messes
as guilds keeping within a group environment they were familiar with it would be an easy mistake
to interpret trading regiments as guilds themselves.
However I would disagree that the janissaries ceased to be a military corporation in the
eighteenth century merely by dint of their engagement in trade. Aside from using and learning
trades that may one day prove useful to the military there is a chance that the work janissaries were
doing in peacetime contributed to keeping them healthy and battle-ready. Working as Porters for
example crossing long distances with heavy loads all day everyday would keep a man strong and fit
as well as cobblers, tailors and blacksmiths all being useful trades to an army on the march with
short supplies. From the numbers willing to muster, even for sporadic campaign recruitment, it is
clear that many men were still willing to engage in military work and that the state did not change
their perception of the janissaries. They were still seen as a military force to be held to military
standards, hence I would claim it is possible to argue that by engaging in trades the janissaries were
keeping themselves in training and substituting, to the best of their ability, the dev irme education
many would never receive.
Kafadar seems to favour the thesis that prioritises janissary movement outwards into the
guilds arguing the long history of janissary involvement in trade even prior to this 'esnafization'.32
Many janissaries chose to work with their hands in artisan crafts, utilising skills that were
traditionally taught to young dev irme recruits, ostensibly to support the army on campaign but also
to ensure them a reserve occupation should the need arise. The eighteenth century was obviously a
time of just such need.

31
32

Ibid, p. 118
Kafadar, Yenieri-esnaf Relations, p. 82

Given the way janissaries in trade to a large extent overshadowed the actions of artisans and
craftsmen in history until recently, it is reasonable to say with regards to Linda Colley's statement
that even though the definition of a janissary might have changed over time the janissary 'hat' once
put on was the one that could not be removed. Writing in 1995 Faroqhi lamented that craftsmen
were not studied for their own sake but due to their importance to the activities of other groups.33
Only recently have they started to be studied for their own sake and the janissaries have
encountered something of a similar problem having usually been written about either in terms of
their military roles or as a contributing factor to the decline debate. Recently studies have appeared
focussing exclusively on themes such as recruitment and trade but there is still very little idea of
what 'janissary identity' means in the big picture.
There is a real need to begin thinking about janissaries in terms of the 'self' and to start
attempting to view their history from their own perspective if we really want to gain a fuller
understanding of the experience of being a janissary. The janissary 'identity' as we think of it
currently is something laid upon the corps by the external parties who constructed it and while
historians may not be solely responsible for this given the often ambiguous nature of terminology in
primary sources, historians have certainly perpetrated it by constant acceptance and repetition
supportive of Gunn's claim that identities are often a product of historical discourse.34

33
34

Faroqhi, Making A Living In The Ottoman Lands 1480 To 1820, (The Isis Press: Istanbul, 1995) p. 71
Gunn, History and Cultural Theory, p. 134