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

[crazy canuck]

That depended largely on the time and place.

Yeah the marchlands (like that one place where the Muslims and Christians were always trading lands...) were a great place for nobodies to become lords.

El Cid comes to mind

He was born in the nobility.

You are thinking of the El Cid of legend not the real man.

[Malthus]

Everywhere.  Including your Wiki page.

You mean the one that says the exact opposite of (your all-caps) "the Mameluks were DESCENDENTS of slave soldiers they were not slaves themselves"? That wiki page? 

They were always described as 'of slave origin' or 'former slaves' not slaves themselves.  If it is because they were bought and trained and then freed well that is weird.  It just presumed they were descended from slaves since a systematic freeing of them to do perform their duties is...well rather odd.

Well, yes, it is odd. That each and every Mamluk, lord or soldier, had been a literal slave, bought and sold like any other merchandise, seems bizzare to us because we associate chattel slavery with extremely *low* status.

But this isn't universal - same deal in ancient Rome: some "slaves" in the imperial household ended up extremely influential.

But in any case your Mameluk lord was still not a slave.  He served a lord same any almost every warrior caste in the world at that time.  Besides plenty of craft apprentices were boys who were bought and worked in exchange for learning the craft in Europe but they were not considered slaves once they became journeymen and so forth.

Further I shot down the Janissary thing right at the beginning of the thread.  Why are you insisting these guys are typical slaves in the Arab world or should even be classified as slaves?  We are talking about actual slaves not some sort of technical rank of a privledged caste.

Huh? We agreed on the Janessary thing. In fact, my whole point is that you could not count Mamluks - Turkish slaves - in the same way as you do "actual slaves". We *agree* on that.

In summary, you can't simply treat every slave transaction as the same. A shipment of slave boys bound for Egypt to become Mamluks means something very different from a shipoment of slave boys across the middle passage.

[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.

I thought social mobility was pretty low during medieval times.
Becoming a merc being the only honest route to richest (or the dream thereoft) for poor people.

There was some.  And being a merc was not an honest profession.  Mercenaries were bandits who were being hired to bother someone else.  The difference between an armed criminal and a soldier was only one legal technicality.  In peace he was a often a criminal, in war a useful asset.  Still people who made an honest living had no desire to see a mercenary hanging around.  It was not really an honorably profession.  Eustace de Folville is an excellent example of medieval soldiery.  He was a knight (I think), and was constantly committing crimes but was being pardoned when ever the King needed soldiers.

[Valmy]

You mean the one that says the exact opposite of (your all-caps) "the Mameluks were DESCENDENTS of slave soldiers they were not slaves themselves"? That wiki page? 

Goddammit Malthus I just explained how I got that impression.   This is really frustrating.  You asked me a question and I answered it.  WTF?

Well, yes, it is odd. That each and every Mamluk, lord or soldier, had been a literal slave, bought and sold like any other merchandise, seems bizzare to us because we associate chattel slavery with extremely *low* status.

But this isn't universal - same deal in ancient Rome: some "slaves" in the imperial household ended up extremely influential.

Yes I do not have that impression.  I am well aware of Roman and Ottoman history and the power slaves and ex-slaves could hold.  However none of them had anything exactly like the Mameluks.  I was not precisely informed of how that worked but even as kids their slave status was a technicality like the Janissary kids.

Huh? We agreed on the Janessary thing. In fact, my whole point is that you could not count Mamluks - Turkish slaves - in the same way as you do "actual slaves". We *agree* on that.

In summary, you can't simply treat every slave transaction as the same. A shipment of slave boys bound for Egypt to become Mamluks means something very different from a shipoment of slave boys across the middle passage.

Yes I agree.  Just as Malcolm X made the distinction between the black slaves who worked in the homes and versus the ones who worked in the fields.  My question though had nothing to do with Turks as slaves I was wondering about the Slavs and why their numbers were so low considering the fame of Slavs as slaves and the long period of time it seems that they were captured and sold as such.  Further what about the black African slaves?  After all the slaves for the middle passage were acquired in this method.

[Siege]

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

I thought social mobility was pretty low during medieval times.
Becoming a merc being the only honest route to richest (or the dream thereoft) for poor people.

There was some.  And being a merc was not an honest profession.  Mercenaries were bandits who were being hired to bother someone else.  The difference between an armed criminal and a soldier was only one legal technicality.  In peace he was a often a criminal, in war a useful asset.  Still people who made an honest living had no desire to see a mercenary hanging around.  It was not really an honorably profession.  Eustace de Folville is an excellent example of medieval soldiery.  He was a knight (I think), and was constantly committing crimes but was being pardoned when ever the King needed soldiers.

The word honest in the same sentence with mercenary should have send your bullshit bells ringing.
I am perfectly aware of what having a free company near your town meant in peace time. In war time at least they got paid, hopefully by your side.

[Ideologue]

Still slaves.  I am aware of an East African slave trade.

Sure they were technically slaves but they were never bought or sold as a commodity so do not count in the Slave Trade.

Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery and probably serfdom in Russia, Hungary, etc.

[Valmy]

Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery, which was also not chattel slavery as practiced in, say, the American south.

Well it certainly could be.  If you were working on a large estate as a field hand or (God help you) in the mines the conditions to the American South were pretty similar.  But there were many better jobs slaves could have.

I wonder if that was the same for the Muslims.  Did they use slaves in dangerous mining work?  What did most of their slaves do?  I mean besides the famous galley slaves that every Med power used.

[Ideologue]

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 are Caucasian.  Garbon says so, so it must be true.

[Razgovory]

The word honest in the same sentence with mercenary should have send your bullshit bells ringing.
I am perfectly aware of what having a free company near your town meant in peace time. In war time at least they got paid, hopefully by your side.

You throw goats down wells.  I have no idea what you mean by honest.

[Ideologue]

Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery, which was also not chattel slavery as practiced in, say, the American south.

Well it certainly could be.  If you were working on a large estate as a field hand or (God help you) in the mines the conditions to the American South were pretty similar.  But there were many better jobs slaves could have.

I wonder if that was the same for the Muslims.  Did they use slaves in dangerous mining work?  What did most of their slaves do?  I mean besides the famous galley slaves that every Med power used.

I edited, as I'm not sure to the extent Roman slavery was identical to American slavery.

[The Brain]

Still slaves.  I am aware of an East African slave trade.

Sure they were technically slaves but they were never bought or sold as a commodity so do not count in the Slave Trade.

Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery and probably serfdom in Russia, Hungary, etc.

Women through much of history!

[The Brain]

Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery, which was also not chattel slavery as practiced in, say, the American south.

Well it certainly could be.  If you were working on a large estate as a field hand or (God help you) in the mines the conditions to the American South were pretty similar.  But there were many better jobs slaves could have.

I wonder if that was the same for the Muslims.  Did they use slaves in dangerous mining work?  What did most of their slaves do?  I mean besides the famous galley slaves that every Med power used.

I edited, as I'm not sure to the extent Roman slavery was identical to American slavery.

Hotter slave girls in Rome.

[Valmy]

I edited, as I'm not sure to the extent Roman slavery was identical to American slavery.

Really?  I mean you work all day, you go back to your hovel at night and you die young.  Seems pretty similar.  And the treatment in the late Republic was so bad you had three servile wars.

[Siege]

Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery, which was also not chattel slavery as practiced in, say, the American south.

Well it certainly could be.  If you were working on a large estate as a field hand or (God help you) in the mines the conditions to the American South were pretty similar.  But there were many better jobs slaves could have.

I wonder if that was the same for the Muslims.  Did they use slaves in dangerous mining work?  What did most of their slaves do?  I mean besides the famous galley slaves that every Med power used.

I edited, as I'm not sure to the extent Roman slavery was identical to American slavery.

Hotter slave girls in Rome.

[Iormlund]

That depended largely on the time and place.

Yeah the marchlands (like that one place where the Muslims and Christians were always trading lands...) were a great place for nobodies to become lords.

El Cid comes to mind

He was born in the nobility.

You are thinking of the El Cid of legend not the real man.

Apparently, recent research indicates his father left him a considerable wealth, far beyond low nobility. He went to court very young to serve as the prince's page as well.