Humanities desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 14

Enslavement of Ottoman women

Hello. I have been informed that it was illegal in the Ottoman Empire to enslave an Ottoman citizen. Slaves were to be non-Muslim foreigners, while Ottoman citizens (regardless of religion) were legally prohibited from taking as slaves. An exception was the Devshirme blood tax.

However, it appears that many women in the Imperial harem of the Ottoman sultan were in fact women who were Ottoman citizens before their enslavement. For example: Safiye Sultan (mother of Mehmed III) - Albanian; Handan Sultan - Bosnian; Sineperver Sultan - Bulgarian; and Saliha Dilasub Sultan - Serbian.

Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria and Serbie were all parts of the Ottoman Empire at that point.

So my question is: was it legal for Ottoman slave traders to take Ottoman citizens as slaves? The Devshirme blood tax enslaved only boys, not girls, so why where there Ottoman girls taken as slaves? Thanks, --Aciram (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circassians were a famous/notorious source of harem slaves, and we have articles Circassian beauty and Black Sea slave trade. Under Islamic law, there was a prohibition against enslaving someone who was a Muslim at the time of enslavement (though if a slave converted to Islam, that didn't affect their slave status). AnonMoos (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The name "Caucasian" for white people basically originated from the Circassian beauty stereotype or tradition... AnonMoos (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the Circassians, you are correct - but that was not my question. The Caucasus was not a part of the Ottoman Empire. I am asking about women who were Ottoman citizens: Greek women, Serbian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Albanian women. They were enslaved despite being Ottoman citizens. Why and how? --Aciram (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circassia was briefly in the Ottoman sphere in the early 18th century. Anyway, the concept of "Ottoman citizen" basically didn't exist before the 19th century, and was not taken up by the Ottoman government until the second half of the 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly is the word: I exclude Circassia from the question. Islamic law banned the enslavement of any person living under Islamic rule regardless of their religion. I sloppily phrased that as "citizen".

My question is: if Islamic and Ottoman law banned the enslavement of any person regardless of religion living under Islamic rule, why were Greek, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Serbian and Albanian women taken as slaves when their countries were under Ottoman rule? Thanks--Aciram (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because powerful rulers can ignore their own laws with impunity? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a guess, I wonder if someone actually knows the answer: was there a particular slave trade, established custom, that explains this, is what I would like to know. The sultan did not buy his slaves himself. They were bought for him on the slave market by his eunuchs. So there must be some sort of established trade going on separate from him.--Aciram (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you've read Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and the links therein? Alansplodge (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have. The article does not explain how women from Ottoman provinces such as Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and Serbia could end up as slaves when enslavement of people who had accepted Islamic rule was protected from enslavement.--Aciram (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Under Ottoman law, were all women in the Sultan’s harem considered slaves? Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Between circa 1500 until cirka 1850, the Ottoman sultans rarely married. Instead, their "consorts" (euphemism) were in fact concubines. That was the custom of the Ottoman sultans in the time period of 1500-1850. Concubines in Islamic lands were always slaves. No Muslim woman could ever be a concubine. Concubines were therefore always non-Muslim slaves.

The "consorts" (concubines, therefore slaves) of the Ottoman sultans were therefore originally non-Muslim slaves. All that is no mystery whatsoever. The question is: how could some of these concubines be from countries (Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia) that were under Ottoman rule, when the law prohibited enslavement of people under Islamic rule? --Aciram (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial harem (defined as ‘sanctuary’) was largely populated by enslaved women, or the daughters of enslaved women, with most originally taken in war.

Identity in the Empire: Enslavement, Florida State University. Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Protection of Christian Minorities in the Ottoman Empire as a Selective Practice of Imperial Intervention - you can access the full text through the Wikipedia Library. Alansplodge (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have a definite answer to this, I'd note that for both the cases of Saliha Dilaşub Sultan and Handan Sultan, our article seem to suggest some doubt about their origins which while a fair part of this might be any good information is now lost all these years later, may also be because it was fairly unclear even at the time as in so much as there might have been any enforcement of the rules, which I expect was limited (I mean after all they later banned slavery but it was mostly on paper only), it's easier if anyone involved doesn't answer such questions or lies. As for Sineperver Sultan and Safiye Sultan (mother of Mehmed III), our articles don't suggest doubt but the first is said to have come from the Rhodope mountains and the second from Dukagjin Highlands. I don't know what these regions were like at the time of the enslavement of Sineperve and Safiye, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were fairly isolated and disconnected from the Ottoman Empire no matter they were under its control, so again making it easier to do stuff which might technically be illegal. Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not quite understand what you mean with the phrase "it's easier if anyone involved doesn't answer such questions or lies". Surely any question of the matter is both allowed and relevant to ask. --Aciram (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free City of Danzig - Nationality

I'm in the process of creating an article and the subject in question was born in the Free City of Danzig in 1925 before moving to the United States and gaining citizenship in 1932. In the first sentence, I was going to say: ...was a xxx, later naturalized American... but I'm not sure what kind of nationality I would put as xxx. He was born to Norwegian parents if that is of any help. Another option could be to say ...was a naturalized American... or even just ... was an American... Sgubaldo (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just say "born in the Free City of Danzig". There's a list of notable people at the article, which take various approaches. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A naturalized American born in the Free City of Danzig" would be probably the best choice. You may also mention their ethnic origin (which was most likely German, but Polish, Kashubian and Jewish are other possibilities). — Kpalion^(talk) 11:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree. The person was 7 when they obtained US citizenship, so their prior citizenship probably didn't play a significant role in their life. The Free City of Danzig issued passports, but whether that person was considered a Danzig citizen themselves would depend on whether their parents were citizens of Danzig or whether they were expats who kept their Norwegian nationality. My family on my father's side are actually from Danzig, but I don't have any pre-annexation documents. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the help! I can't find any sources that mention his specific ethnic origin beyond him having Norwegian parents, so I'll mention that he was American and was born in the Free City of Danzig. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when there are multiple pieces of non-aligned biographical background information (here ethnic background, city of birth, and state of later citizenship) it's easier to address them as their own sentence later in the lead (or even body) than try to squeeze them all into the first sentence. Folly Mox (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at how it's been handled for Algis Budrys, who was in an analagous situation.

Anecdote: in the early 1990s, my con-running colleagues and I invited Budrys to be a Guest of Honour at our SF convention in the UK. He accepted, but then had to withdraw because, though resident in the USA for over 50 years, he had not previously applied for a passport, and discovered that if he left the USA he might not be allowed back in by Immigration! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus follow-up question now on here! Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]