7. Slaves

Toledano writes of enslavement in the Ottoman empire as a "continuum of varying origins, cultures, functions, and statuses" (14). Thus, the experience of enslavement varied as to where the slave was from, who they were, who their master was, where they lived, and what tasks they were to perform. Toledano begins by challenging previous scholarship on the question of whether Ottoman slavery was mild or harsh; the Ottoman empire has been described as a "society with slaves" rather than a "slave society" to indicate that while Ottoman society did include ownership of people (Toledano reports the enslaved as 5% of the population (14)), enslavement was not fundamental to the operation of that society. To this question, Toledano retorts that "regardless of the alleged mildness of Ottoman slave experiences, bondage was a condition most enslaved people tried to extricate themselves from" (21-22). Despite the "natural desire for freedom" (22), however, Toledano also notes that enslavement itself was a form of social belonging.

In recasting the "master-slave" relationship as a relationship of "slaver-enslaved," Toledano is attempting to reframe the discussion of enslavement away from one of strict identity into a discussion of actions; he characterizes this relationship as a patronage system. In Ottoman society, individuals were attached to social groups, and enslavement was another form of attachment: the enslaved was attached to the household of the slaver. Slaves were by and large kinless, and so this social attachment through the slaver was one of the benefits of patronage. If an enslaved person were manumitted, that person would experience a break in the household bond and risk social marginalization as being unattached to any household; this social marginalization was severe, and unattachment was criminalized.

With this social landscape, Toledano explores the experience of enslavement and the variety of that experience through slave agency. Within the patronage system, those being patronized - the enslaved - had some amount of agency within their status. This was due in no small part to the household attachment, through which the enslaved formed a family bond with the slaver, which necessitated trust. Thus, there could be betrayal from either side in the relationship, which would allow the betrayed party to demand reparations. A certain amount of leverage could be gained in this relationship as well, as Toledano illustrates with the example of the kul/harem-type enslaved, or Mamluks. Mamluks could "improve their lot by showing efficiency and loyalty" and "good performance increased their value...which reduced substantially the hazards they ran" as elites (33-34). For Toledano, there was "no difference of kind between kul/harem slaves and other types of slaves, although there certainly were differences of degree among them within the category of Ottoman slavery" (21). Therefore, although Mamluks were indeed elites, their agency functioned inside the same slaver-enslaved paradigm common to all types of Ottoman enslaved persons.

While Toledano attempted to evaluate Mamluks within the overall Ottoman system of enslavement, Ayalon frames the Mamluks as a unique institution, and evaluates not their enslaved experience, but rather the effects of their unique requirements and tasks. Ayalon, while agreeing that Mamluks were indeed "part and parcel of the Muslim slave system," believes that these slaves constituted "a very special category within that system" (90). The most notable feature of the Mamluks is that it is a one-generation class: children of Mamluks are not themselves Mamluks and therefore the supply of Mamluks must constantly be refilled. Additionally, Mamluks were a military body, and thus their tasks were narrowly defined but easily evaluated from a historical standpoint. Ayalon attempts to contextualize the Mamluks in a description of the four fronts of the dar al-islam, the four regions bordering the Islamic world.

The African and Indian fronts were inconsequential in relation to Mamluk institutions, as neither became a source for Mamluk recruits and neither posed a military threat that would necessitate Mamluk armies becoming involved.

Ayalon describes the Eurasian front both as the "great story of Islam" and as a "huge human reservoir" (96). Most Mamluks came from this area, and Ayalon notes that the "most common word used for the Mamluk is 'Turk'" (98). Most Muslims did not acknowledge much difference between Mamluks, Turks and Mongols. Interestingly, Ayalon writes that "the infidels of yesterday vanquished the Muslims of tomorrow" (99); this idea denotes the perception of Mamluks as reformed warriors fighting for their new faith: a born-again army. Additionally, on this front, the Mamluks engaged in much warfare and succeeded in extending the borders of the dar al-islam. Here, they were successful.

On the Christian European front, Ayalon describes a separate Mamluk system than on the Eurasian front, one with more difficulties. Here, military resistance was more adept, and Christian navies easily managed to destroy the Mamluk navy. On this front as well, Mamluk supply lines were blocked, and so "no real Mamluk army could be formed" (105) in Fatimid Egypt because they were lacking access to viable recruits. Later, the Ottoman empire with its Mamluk system stood against Christian invasions, but Ayalon believes that ultimately, "the Mamluk socio-military system could not withstand the growing European technological superiority" (107). In the end, Ayalon seems to blame what he sees as Islamic inferiority on this front in part on its inability to reform its military, specifically due to the military's reliance on Mamluk units and cavalry.

The two approaches complement each other in a way, with Toledano describing the internal landscape of what it meant to be an enslaved person, Mamluk or other, in Ottoman society, and Ayalon providing the external context for the specific purpose of the Mamluk institution. There were unintended effects on both sides: internally, the system created an inroad for migration and integration into Muslim society by out groups, and externally, the search for Mamluks contributed to an outward push to expand the boundaries of the Muslim world, successful or not, and created trade networks to supply people for Mamluk recruitment.