Skip to main content

How did the Ottoman and Safavid Empires treat the religious minorities they conquered? Also, what is the Ottoman Janissary system and the rivalry...

Like many empires throughout history, the Ottoman Empire conquered many people and sought to convert them to their own religion. Those that did not convert were given second-class status, called zimmis, granted some limited autonomy but still subject to Ottoman rule and Islamic law. This was better than religious minorities were treated in many other parts of the world, but hardly equality.

The Ottoman Sultan Marad I formed the Janissary from captured Christians who were pressed into service as a personal bodyguard for the Sultan. His successor, Marad II, expanded their role to be an elite military corps that served a variety of functions---but still maintained the general practice of pressing Christians into service. Eventually they became a powerful interest group in their own right. In a time when most armies were gathered ad hoc from serfs and peasants, the Janissary formed something much closer to a modern standing army. They used firearms, which at the time were state-of-the-art.

The Sunni/Shi'a conflict has been a part of Islam since a generation after the religion's founding, so it's hardly limited to the Savafid Empire; but it was certainly important there. Though Shah Ismail was originally Sufi, he converted to Shi'a, and declared the independence of the Savafid Empire from the Ottoman Empire when the Ottomans outlawed Shi'a and mandated Sunni Islam.

Ismail then made the Savafid Empire a Shi'a state, despite the fact that most of the population was in fact Sunni. This led to a campaign to convert the population to Shi'a, ranging from propaganda to outright coercion. This conversion of the population to Shi'a was largely successful, and to this day Iran is a Shi'a state with a predominantly Shi'a population.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.