Do try to make a difference between the Selçuks and the Ottomans... Basically it was nothing special what the Selçuks did in Cappadocia and Armenia.Originally Posted by artavazd
You see, taking Christians captive and selling them in the slave markets of Damascus was nothing new. And it was common practice for promising Christian children, taken captive, to be sold to the Caliph (or rich men within the Caliphate) and raised as ghulams. They were the precursors to both the Mamluks and the Yeniçeris.
The most amazing part was that it was common practice amongst Muslims to sell themselves as ghulams! Why? Because it was able for one of these men to buy his freedom later on, and if one could do that, he probably would have amassed enough wealth and power to live a much better life than he could have hoped for in his earlier life. Such a strategy to get higher up in society was much practiced amongst the Oghuz living in the Samanid emirate.
Anyways, on the topic of Crusaders going on crusade for profit or for zeal: personally I think that there was a fair share of both in the First Crusade. Men joined up to escape punishment for criminal acts, to go to Heaven when they first could not have, or yes, to simply become rich. And then there were people who went along as simple pilgrims, seeing this as a very large-scale armed pilgrimage. And then there were those who went purely and simply to 'liberate the Holy Land from the infidel.'
To say that there was one alone or the other is wrong, as stating with full assuredness a certain percentage of each.
~Wiz
Bookmarks