Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Early Modern History: Society and Culture)

When they think of slavery, most Americans doubtless think of way Black Africans were captured by other Black Africans and then sold to White slave traders who transported them across the Atlantic for resale to British, American, and Portuguese masters in the new world, most ending up in Brazil and the American South. Doubtless fewer Americans are aware that a roughly equal number of Black Africans were sold to Arabic slave traders who ran slave markets in the Middle East. Transportation by land across the Sahara was about as deadly as the Middle Passage by sea across the Atlantic and some historians say about an equal number crossed the Sahara as the Atlantic. Historians rightly point out that Africans taken to the New World had few rights and were treated little better than farm animals while Africans taken to Islamic countries , while still slaves, were somewhat protected by provisions in the Koran that recognized and regulated slavery and did not recognize a hierarchy of races.So to their great credit, North African states, nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, did not select their victims on the basis of race. They were, indeed, equal opportunity slavers. They were not totally unlike hunters who round up wild horses and tame them for eventual resale. Intrigued when I came across a reference to Professor Davis’ book in The Economist, I ordered it to learn a bit more about how the other half slaved.Professor Davis’ research into the nature and extent of the enslavement of White Europeans was a considerable scholarly challenge. It was no easy task to develop credible conclusions from the scant data about events that took place between 1500 and 1750 in the Eastern Mediterranean. Still, he is firm in his conclusion that around a million Europeans were captured by Muslim state-sanctioned warriors, sold in public markets, and subsequently forced to work without pay and with minimal civil rights. Their lives were often nasty, brutal, and short.This is a topic fraught with potential for bias, counter-bias, and more. Davis never comes close to polemics or lurid atmospherics. He never presents his research as anything like an "expose" or the "true story" of anything. Keeping all this in mind, I would say four things stuck with me after reading the book. 1. The European part of the African slave trade was just that, a trade. They bought and sold in a free market. Long before they came on the scene the power and wealth of many African political leaders depended on their ability to capture and enslave other Africans. In some places this had been going on for centuries by the time Europeans arrived on the scene and quickly began to outbid other bidders for slaves. The market quickly expanded. African slavers produced more and more product. Europeans bought and transported more. Who’s to blame? Davis bends over backwards to avoid indicting any other than the White slaver traders, but still leaves the question up to the reader.2. In the Moslem Mediterranean slave trade, there was no separation between those who captured the victims and those who sold them. Barbary coast raiders went out into the Mediterranean with the express purpose of capturing non-Muslims for eventual resale in slave markets. Since the Koran forbids one Muslim to enslave another, only Christians, Jews, and the occasional non-believer could be taken. They were just as willing to scoop up a few dozen peasants from an Italian village as they were to grab a similar number from a becalmed merchant ship off the coast of Sicily for transportation to a slave market in North Africa.3. But Davis writes as an academic researcher, not a revisionist. So we learn that those “enslaved” by Muslim pirates could and (sometimes) would be redeemed by their relatives/friends etc. We also learn that it was not a “free for all” between Muslims and Christians in the Mediterranean. Pirates could only attack, capture, and enslave people from stages that were “officially” at war with the Ottoman Empire. Other Christians could sail by unmolested (with a little bit of luck). And pirates worked overtime to find out the social status of captured Europeans because they knew the relatives of better off Europeans would eventually pay a pretty price for their release. Also, Southern Europeans who were captured and enslaved by North Africans were really fairly close to home, able to communicate with family and friends, and negotiate for eventual ransom and release. Africans who sold into slavery in a the New World were thousands of miles from home, stigmatized by their race, and forced to struggle with totally alien cultures.Since the Koran forbids a Muslim to enslave another Muslim, many enslaved Christians were tempted to escape enslavement by accepting Islam as a new faith. Davis reports that a lot of bargaining went on since owners knew that a Christian slave could become a free Muslim with an oath or two and recanting slaves knew they would be cutting ties with family and community. Davis makes it very clear that galley slaves led short and hellish lives, the great majority of enslaved peasants and common sailors were a lot worse off than they had been before enslavement, and the middle-class and aristocratic captives were often ransomed and returned within a year or two.4. Still, I am aware of a fair amount of research that suggests that Africans who survived the dangerous trek across the Sahara were somewhat protected by the Koran and by Shari law. Most Africans taken into slavery eventually blended into the population of the Arab middle east fairly well.me to Europeans and Americans.His research was no piece of cake. He obviously struggled to develop conclusions from the now scant data about events that took place centuries ago, between 1500 and 1750 in the Eastern Mediterranean. But it certainly seems likely that in something like a million Europeans were captured by Muslim pirates/privateers/commandos (take your pick), sold in public markets, forced to work without pay, and likely to lead short, unhappy lives. In short, they were sought out, captured, sold at auction, and thus enslaved.This is a topic fraught with potential for bias, counter-bias, and more. Davis never come close to polemics of any kind. He never presents his research as anything like an "expose" or the "true story" of anything. Keeping all this in mind, I would say 4things stuck with me after reading the book. from the scant archives of a half-century ago and African slaves were transported to what is now Brazil, to the French and British Caribbean, and to what are now the Southern states of the U.S. that few contemporary readers are likely aware that a very aggressive enslavement of Europeans by North African subject states of the Ottoman Empire (the Barbary States) over two centuries (roughly 1550 to 1750) resulted1. The African slave trade by Europeans was just that, a trade. There were many African political leaders whose power was dependent on their ability to capture and enslave other Africans. They had been doing it for centuries by the time Europeans arrived. The Europeans outbid the locals for slaves. The market quickly expanded. African slavers produced more and more product. Europeans bought and transported more. Who’s to blame? Davis bends over backwards to avoid indicting any other than the White slaver traders, but still leaves the question up to the reader.2. In the Moslem Mediterranean slave trade , there was no separation between those who captured the victims and those who sold them. Barbary coast raiders were just a willing to scoop up a few dozen peasants from an Italian village as they were to grab a similar number from a becalmed merchant ship off the coast of Sicily. So not a pretty picture. In Africa, European merchants were just transporting “cargo” from point to point. But in the Mediterranean, Muslims seemed to claim that a holy war justified capturing and selling Europeans.3. But, as I said above, Davis writes as an academic researcher, not a revisionist. So we learn that those “enslaved” by Muslim pirates could and (sometimes) would be redeemed by their relatives/friends etc. We also learn that it was not a “free for all” between Muslims and Christians in the Mediterranean. Pirates could only attack, capture, and enslave people from stages that were “officially” at war with the Ottoman Empire. Other Christians could sail by unmolested (with a little bit of luck). Also, Southern Europeans captured and enslaved by Ottomans were often quite close to home, able to communicate with family and friends, and negotiate for eventual ransom and release.As always in the ironic world of Islam, there existed the stipulation that one Muslim cannot be enslaved by another Muslim. Hence, many enslaved Christians were tempted to try to regain “freedom” by accepting Islam as a new faith. Davis reports that a lot of bargaining went on. Some did. Some didn’t. To me, sounds like Ireland.4. Still, there is a lot of research that suggests that about the same number of African captives (seven million) crossed the “middle passage” as crossed the Sahara on the way to Arabic slave markets. Yet , once processed by such markets, and protected by Shari law, former slaves in Africa eventually blended into the population of the Arab middle east fairly well. All well and good. But only in the West, in the U.S., did Obama become Head of State.Hardly an easy topic to research. Thanks to Dr. Davis, we are a step closer to truth.

This is an eye-opening account of Barbary Coast slavery, American historians have studied every aspect of enslavement of Africans by "whites" but have largely ignored enslavement of "whites" by North Africans which flourished during approximately the same period as the trans-Atlantic slave trade. What is most striking about Barbary slaving raids is their scale and reach. Pirates took most of their slaves from ships, but they also organized huge, amphibious assaults that practically depopulated parts of the Italian coast. Italy was the most popular target, partly because Sicily is only 125 miles from Tunis, but also because it did not have strong central rulers who could resist invasion. The Barbary Coast extends from Morocco through modern Libya, was home to a thriving man-catching industry from about 1500 to 1800. The great slaving capitals were Salé in Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli, and for most of these periods, European naval protection was too weak to put up more than token resistance.The trans-Atlantic trade in "blacks" was commercial, but for Arabs, memories of the Crusades and fury over expulsion from Spain in 1492 seem to have fueled an almost war-like Christian stealing campaign. For example; when pirates sacked Vieste in southern Italy in 1554, they took an astonishing 6,000 captives. Algerians took 7,000 slaves in the Bay of Naples in 1544, in a raid that drove the price of slaves so low it was said you could "swap a Christian for an onion."Spain also suffered attacks. After a raid on Granada in 1566 netted 4,000 men, women, and children, it was said to be "raining Christians in Algiers". For every large-scale raid of this kind there would have been dozens of smaller ones. When Muslim corsairs came ashore, they made a point of desecrating churches, stealing church bells --- not just because the metal was valuable but also to silence the distinctive voice of Christianity. During frequent smaller raids, only a few ships would operate by stealth in the middle of the night so to catch people "in their beds". This practice gave rise to the modern-day Sicilian expression, pigliato dai turchi, or "taken by the Turks"... Meaning to be caught by surprise while asleep or distracted.Some Arab pirates were formidable skilled blue-water sailors, and terrorized Christians up to 1000 miles away. During one account, a raid in the early 1600s occurred all the way to Iceland, netting nearly 400 captives. Throughout the 17th century, Arab pirates operated freely in British waters, even sailing up the Thames estuary to pick off prizes and raid coastal towns. By the mid-1600s the British were running a brisk trans-Atlantic trade in "blacks", but many British crewmen themselves became the property of Arab raiders.TREATMENT:"Bastinado" was a term for common punishment once in North Africa. It was tradition to parade newly-captured Christians through the streets, so people could jeer at them, and children could pelt them with refuse. At the slave market, men were made to jump about to prove they were not lame, and buyers often wanted them stripped naked again to see if they were healthy. This was also to evaluate the sexual value of both men and women; "white" concubines had a high value, and all the slave capitals had a flourishing homosexual underground. Buyers who hoped to make a quick profit on a fat ransom examined earlobes for signs of piercing, which was an indication of wealth. It was also common to check a captive's teeth to see if he was likely to survive on a tough slave diet. It is well known that malnutrition, overcrowding, overwork, brutal punishment, and epidemics of epidemics of plague usually wiped out 20 to 30 percent of the "white" slaves. It was also common to shave the heads and beards of public slaves as an added humiliation during a period when head and facial hair were an important part of a man's identity. It was also common to strip men naked, both to examine their clothes for sewn-in valuables and to see if any circumcised Jews were masquerading as gentiles.REDEMPTION:It was common to bring the freed "white" slaves home, and march them through city streets in big celebrations. These parades became one of the most characteristic urban spectacles of the period, and had a strong religious orientation. Sometimes the slaves marched in their old slave rags to emphasize the torments they had suffered; sometimes they wore special white costumes to symbolize rebirth. According to contemporary records, many freed slaves were never quite right after their ordeals, especially if they had spent many years in captivity.So, why is there so little interest in Mediterranean slavery while scholars perpetually focus entirely on "black" slavery? Perhaps, "white" slaves with "non-white" masters simply does not fit the master narrative of European imperialism.

A detailed and in-depth study of a phenomenon which is little known in contemporary Europe, and perhaps should be more widely understood. For instance, the whole North African colonial adventure by France makes more sense when you understand that the European slave trade was only permanently halted when the French invaded Algeria and Tunisia. Also, the theological justifications for the enslavement of non-Muslims is even now being discussed on broadcast and print media throughout the Middle East at the present time.Davis' book is thick with facts and analysis which provide an absorbing insight into the economic and social impact of this unpleasant trade. The lack of a human narrative might put casual readers off, but it is definitely worth making an effort to grasp the subject matter, but there is nevertheless plenty of objectively presented examination of personal accounts of the cruelty and barbarism of the slave-takers and owners. Tantalisingly, Davis touches on the possibility that many of the European converts to Islam who so enthusiastically enslaved their former compatriots, and who wore their own Islam so lightly, may have included homosexuals escaping Church persecution, given that many of these European renegades were alleged to have sexually abused their male captives.Davis also cautions against contrasting the European slave trade with the trans-Atlantic variety. Indeed, as early as the seventeenth century savants were asking how, if it was wrong for a Muslim to enslave a Christian, it could be right for a Christian to enslave a pagan African.If I have a complaint about this book it was that Davis limits his analysis to the Turkish vassal states in Barbary, whose slaving, while it occasionally reached out to the British Isles and beyond, predominantly attacked the Mediterranean coasts of Europe. The Moroccan slavers, who more frequently attacked Britain and Ireland, are not covered.

Slavery is a very sensitive subject, no matter who is being enslaved. Davis explains the causes and the reaction of slavery on its victims . We normally assume slavery was of the African native by the rich Northern Americans,however, the author reveals that there was a big market in white slaves by Middle Eastern enslavers. This trade stretched from Iceland to Tunisia to Ireland. Some of the enslaved were reluctant to return many died in the service of their captors. The trade seemed to be a cash cow to some smaller nations for several years. Not an easy read and the book is expensive but interesting.

This book is written without any polemical intent, it is pure historical research. Yet it shows light on a very important aspect of how the muslim world interacted with Europe. It also shows a new light on slavery as a whole, and it is important to teach this aspect of things that have generally been forgotten / hidden in European history manuals.

This book reveals facts about the history of slavery of which most people are totally ignorant. It places events into chronological order and traces slavery before the more widely known Atlantic Slave Trade.

An extraordinarily interesting book on an almost unknown and a little explored subject. Very factual, rather than a story.