When the Ottoman flag flew over part of Britain ...

[Valmy]

I think Slave/Slav thing comes from early middle ages, when Tatars were still in Mongolia.

Ah you are right.  The slavers were the Tatars predecessors in the Crimea though.  Kipchaks and Khazars according to wiki.  I had the idea right just not the time frame.

[Malthus]

Or do the Turks not count as part of the Arab slave trade?

Well the Turks were victims of and then practitioners in said trade so acting like they are separate is a little odd.

Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.

For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...

[Valmy]

Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.

For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...

The Mameluks were not Turks.  The numbers presented were Africans and Euros not Asians.  I was asking if the slaves (not including legal technicalities like Jannissaries but galley slaves and the like) owned by the Turks counted.

Edit: or were they?  I guess Cumans do count as Turks.  But I was rather talking about the Slaves the Turks owned and bought not counting as part of the Arab trade.

[Malthus]

Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.

For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...

The Mameluks were not Turks.  The numbers presented were Africans and Euros not Asians.  I was asking if the slaves (not including legal technicalities like Jannissaries but galley slaves and the like) owned by the Turks counted.

Edit: or were they?  I guess Cumans do count as Turks.  But I was rather talking about the Slaves the Turks owned and bought not counting as part of the Arab trade.

Mamluks were often, in fact generally, Turks, though not from what is today known as Turkey.

[Razgovory]

Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.

For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...

Yeah, the blacks got to keep their wedding tackle.

[Valmy]

Ok are you just messing with me Malthus?  I just said that.  Shorty after you corrected me saying Turk slave soldiers do not really count shortly after I said they shouldn't count. 

[Razgovory]

I doubt most slaves were soldiers.

[Malthus]

Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.

For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...

Yeah, the blacks got to keep their wedding tackle.

And Mamluks didn't? 

[Razgovory]

The Eunuch ones probably didn't.

[Malthus]

The Eunuch ones probably didn't.

There were eunuch Mamluks?

No wonder they were so cruel. 

[crazy canuck]

I think Slave/Slav thing comes from early middle ages, when Tatars were still in Mongolia.

Ah you are right.  The slavers were the Tatars predecessors in the Crimea though.  Kipchaks and Khazars according to wiki.  I had the idea right just not the time frame.

I think there was overlap.  When the Mongels came west the Kipchaks allied with them, along with the Armenians and Georgians, and iirc the Kipchak slave trade benefited greatly from this relationship.  Much to the later regret of the Mongols when a Mamaluk army (composed of some of those same slaves) defeated the Mongols and marked the end of Mongol expansion in the South West of their empire.

[Razgovory]

Anyway, I don't think enslaved and made into a human killing machine would rank as a positive thing.

[Malthus]

Anyway, I don't think enslaved and made into a human killing machine would rank as a positive thing.

Depends on whether you ended up ruling the place or not.

Throughout much of human history, being a "human killing machine" was the same as being "a member of the nobility".

In English, the very term of respect - "Sir" - derives from knighthood, and what is a knight origially but a guy on hoseback wearing armour and carrying weapons?

"Enslavement" is a very relative thing. Technically a European peasant wasn't a slave and a Mamluk lord was a slave, but which would you rather be given a choice?

[Razgovory]

European peasant could also rise fairly high though most did not.  On the other hand, most Mameluke probably spent their lives as common soldiers.

[Razgovory]

Anyway, I don't think enslaved and made into a human killing machine would rank as a positive thing.

Depends on whether you ended up ruling the place or not.

Throughout much of human history, being a "human killing machine" was the same as being "a member of the nobility".

In English, the very term of respect - "Sir" - derives from knighthood, and what is a knight origially but a guy on hoseback wearing armour and carrying weapons?

"Enslavement" is a very relative thing. Technically a European peasant wasn't a slave and a Mamluk lord was a slave, but which would you rather be given a choice?

I think the word "knight" originally meant "Servant".  Same as the word "Sergeant".