From Our Favorite Historical Parallel Brother — Shamus Gerry III
# Trump’s National Guard Surge… and the Sultan Who Destroyed His Own Elite Troops
*By Shamus Gerry III*
The Modern Mystery
Something chilling happened in America’s capital this week that would make a 200-year-old Ottoman Sultan nod knowingly from his ancient throne. While Americans debated everything from grocery prices to social media trends, President Trump quietly deployed over 800 National Guard troops to Washington D.C., with West Virginia alone sending 300-400 additional soldiers at the administration’s request. These aren’t just security measures—they’re the militarization of America’s political heart in ways that echo through history with terrifying precision.
The pattern is unmistakable: elite military forces, originally created to protect the state, now patrolling the streets of the capital with weapons drawn and orders that blur the line between foreign warfare and domestic control. Trump’s justification sounds familiar to any student of history—crime control, public safety, maintaining order. But when rulers start deploying military forces in their own capitals, history shows us exactly where that path leads.
What makes this moment particularly ominous is how normal it’s becoming. The National Guard troops preparing to carry weapons in Washington represent something unprecedented in modern American history: a standing military presence in the seat of government, answerable not to Congress or the courts, but to a single man’s interpretation of “order.” It’s as if we’re watching the first act of a play that’s been performed countless times throughout history, always with the same tragic ending.
The most disturbing parallel isn’t with recent American history—it’s with the Ottoman Empire of 1826, when Sultan Mahmud II faced an identical crisis with his own elite military force. The Janissaries, like today’s National Guard, were originally created as the ultimate protectors of the realm. But by 1826, they had become something far more dangerous: a domestic military force that controlled the very heart of the empire. What happened next offers a chilling preview of where America might be heading.
The Time Portal
*Istanbul, June 15, 1826*
The morning call to prayer echoed across the Bosphorus as Sultan Mahmud II stood on his palace balcony, watching smoke rise from the Janissary barracks below. For nearly four centuries, the distinctive white caps and red uniforms of the Janissaries had been the most feared sight on any battlefield from Vienna to Baghdad. These weren’t ordinary soldiers—they were the world’s first modern standing army, elite troops taken as children from Christian families, converted to Islam, and trained to be absolutely loyal to the Sultan alone.
But loyalty, Mahmud had learned, was a double-edged sword.
The Janissaries had started as the Sultan’s personal bodyguard, the ultimate insurance policy against rebellion and foreign invasion. They were forbidden to marry, to own property, or to have any allegiance except to the Ottoman throne. In return, they received privileges that made them the most powerful military force in the known world: guaranteed pay, political influence, and the right to live in the heart of Istanbul itself.
By 1826, however, something had gone terribly wrong. The Janissaries had evolved from protectors into controllers. They decided which Sultans lived and which died. They determined which wars the Empire would fight and which reforms would be allowed. When they disapproved of a policy, they would march through the streets of Istanbul, overturning their cooking pots in a ritual of rebellion that struck fear into the heart of the government.
The irony was exquisite: the very force created to protect the Sultan’s absolute power had become the greatest threat to that power. The Janissaries had transformed from servants of the state into masters of it, using their military might not to defend the Empire from external enemies, but to control its internal politics. They had become, in essence, a domestic military force that answered to no one but themselves.
Mahmud II understood what his predecessors had failed to grasp: when your protectors become your controllers, you no longer have protectors—you have occupiers. And occupiers, whether foreign or domestic, must eventually be expelled or they will consume the very thing they claim to protect.
The Parallel Revelation
The similarities between Mahmud II’s Janissary crisis and Trump’s National Guard deployment are so precise they seem almost scripted by history itself. Both involve elite military forces originally created to protect the state being deployed for domestic political control. Both feature a ruler who justifies military deployment in the capital as necessary for “order” and “security.” And both represent the dangerous moment when the line between external defense and internal control disappears entirely.
Consider the parallels: The Janissaries were elite troops with special privileges, just like today’s National Guard units that receive federal funding and equipment while maintaining state loyalties. The Janissaries lived in barracks in the heart of Istanbul, controlling the political center of the Empire—exactly as National Guard troops are now being stationed throughout Washington D.C., the political heart of America. Most chillingly, both forces were deployed not against foreign enemies, but against the domestic population they were supposedly created to protect.
The psychological dynamics are identical. Sultan Mahmud II, like Trump, faced resistance from established institutions and used military force as the ultimate argument. The Janissaries, like the National Guard, found themselves caught between competing loyalties—to their traditional role as protectors and their new role as enforcers of political will. Both rulers discovered that when you militarize politics, you inevitably politicize the military.
The justifications echo across centuries with eerie precision. Mahmud II claimed the Janissaries were necessary to maintain order against “internal enemies” who threatened the stability of the Empire. Trump claims the National Guard is necessary to control crime and maintain order against “internal enemies” who threaten the stability of America. Both rulers portrayed domestic military deployment not as an expansion of power, but as a reluctant response to extraordinary circumstances.
Even the mechanics are similar. The Janissaries were deployed throughout Istanbul under the pretext of protecting the Sultan and maintaining order, but their real function was to intimidate political opponents and demonstrate the consequences of resistance. The National Guard is being deployed throughout Washington under the pretext of crime control and public safety, but their real function appears to be intimidating political opponents and demonstrating the consequences of resistance.
The most disturbing parallel is how both deployments normalized the presence of military force in civilian political spaces. The Janissaries became such a fixture in Istanbul that their presence stopped seeming unusual—until it was too late to remove them peacefully. The National Guard’s presence in Washington is already being treated as routine, a new normal that Americans are expected to accept without question.
But perhaps the most chilling similarity is what both deployments reveal about the ruler’s mindset. When a leader deploys military force in his own capital, he’s making a fundamental declaration: that his authority rests not on consent or legitimacy, but on the threat of violence. He’s announcing that he no longer trusts civilian institutions to maintain his power and has decided to rely on military force instead.
The Pattern Recognition
This pattern repeats across millennia because it addresses a fundamental paradox of power: those strong enough to protect you are also strong enough to control you. Every ruler throughout history has faced this dilemma, and most have made the same fatal choice—they’ve chosen short-term security over long-term freedom, military efficiency over civilian oversight, and personal loyalty over institutional integrity.
The psychology is always the same. Rulers begin by genuinely believing they need military protection against real threats. But once military force becomes the primary tool of governance, it creates its own momentum. Military solutions start being applied to civilian problems. Military thinking—with its emphasis on hierarchy, obedience, and the elimination of opposition—begins to dominate political thinking. Before long, the ruler can’t imagine governing without military support, and the military can’t imagine existing without political power.
This is why the Janissary pattern has appeared in virtually every empire in history. The Roman Praetorian Guard, originally created to protect the Emperor, eventually controlled who became Emperor. The Chinese Imperial Guard repeatedly overthrew dynasties they were supposed to defend. The Russian Streltsy, the French Garde Royale, the Persian Immortals—all followed the same trajectory from protectors to controllers to threats that had to be eliminated.
The pattern persists because it exploits a fundamental weakness in human nature: our tendency to normalize whatever we see repeatedly. When military force appears in civilian spaces often enough, it stops seeming unusual. When soldiers patrol the streets of the capital long enough, it stops seeming threatening. When military solutions are applied to civilian problems frequently enough, it stops seeming inappropriate.
This normalization process is already visible in America. The sight of National Guard troops in Washington is being treated as routine rather than extraordinary. The deployment of military force for domestic law enforcement is being discussed as a policy option rather than a constitutional crisis. The militarization of civilian politics is being accepted as necessary rather than dangerous.
But history shows us that this normalization is the most dangerous phase of the pattern. Once military force in civilian spaces becomes normal, it becomes permanent. Once military solutions to civilian problems become acceptable, they become inevitable. Once military loyalty to a single leader becomes expected, civilian oversight becomes impossible.
The Ancient Warning
What happened next in Istanbul offers a terrifying preview of where America’s path might lead. On June 15, 1826, when the Janissaries finally revolted against Sultan Mahmud II’s attempts to reform them, the Sultan made a decision that shocked the world: he ordered his artillery to fire directly into the Janissary barracks. For three days, Ottoman cannons pounded the heart of Istanbul, killing over 6,000 elite troops and destroying the most powerful military force in the Empire.
The “Auspicious Incident,” as it came to be known, solved Mahmud’s immediate problem—the Janissaries were eliminated as a political force. But it created a far more dangerous precedent: it established that military force could be used against military force, that domestic troops could be turned against domestic troops, and that the ultimate arbiter of political disputes was not law or tradition, but artillery.
The aftermath was even more chilling. Having destroyed the Janissaries, Mahmud II created a new military force that was even more directly under his personal control. The lesson he learned wasn’t that military force shouldn’t be used for domestic politics—it was that military force needed to be more completely subordinated to his personal will.
This is the pattern that should terrify every American watching National Guard troops patrol Washington. The problem isn’t just that military force is being used for domestic control—it’s that once this precedent is established, it becomes the template for resolving all future political conflicts. When military deployment becomes the answer to civilian resistance, military deployment becomes the only answer to civilian resistance.
The Ottoman Empire never recovered from the Auspicious Incident. Having established that political problems could be solved with artillery, subsequent Sultans found themselves increasingly dependent on military force to maintain power. The Empire became a military state in all but name, with civilian institutions reduced to rubber stamps for military decisions. Within a century, the Ottoman Empire had collapsed entirely, destroyed not by foreign enemies but by the internal contradictions of military rule.
The warning for America is clear: once you normalize military force in civilian politics, you can’t unnormalize it. Once you accept that domestic troops can be deployed against domestic populations, you’ve accepted that might makes right. Once you allow a single leader to deploy military force based on his personal interpretation of “order,” you’ve abandoned the principle that civilian authority controls military power.
5 Things Readers Can Do This Week
History doesn’t have to repeat itself, but only if we learn from it before it’s too late. Here are five concrete steps you can take this week to prepare yourself and your family for the possibility that America’s domestic military deployment follows the Ottoman pattern:
1. Build Local Food Security Networks
The Ottoman Empire’s collapse began with military control but accelerated when supply chains broke down under military rule. Start building relationships with local farmers and food producers now, before military priorities override civilian needs. [Homesteader Depot](https://homesteaderdepot.com) offers comprehensive guides on establishing local food networks and building relationships with regional suppliers. Their “Community Resilience Toolkit” provides step-by-step instructions for creating neighborhood food security systems that can function independently of centralized distribution.
2. Develop Alternative Communication Systems
When the Janissaries controlled Istanbul, they controlled information flow throughout the Empire. Military forces always prioritize controlling communications during domestic deployments. Establish secure communication networks with family and trusted neighbors using encrypted messaging apps, ham radio, or other decentralized systems. [Self Reliance Report](https://selfreliancereport.com) maintains updated guides on communication security and alternative information networks that remain functional during infrastructure disruptions.
3. Create Financial Independence from Federal Systems
The Ottoman Sultan’s ability to destroy the Janissaries came partly from his control over their pay and benefits. Reduce your family’s dependence on federal financial systems by diversifying into local currencies, precious metals, and barter networks. [Survival Stronghold](https://survivalstronghold.com) provides detailed strategies for financial independence that remain stable during political upheavals and military rule.
4. Strengthen Physical and Mental Resilience
Military rule always brings increased stress, uncertainty, and potential violence. Build your family’s physical and mental resilience now through fitness training, stress management, and community support networks. [Freedom Health Daily](https://freedomhealthdaily.com) offers evidence-based approaches to building resilience that help families maintain stability during political crises and social upheaval.
5. Learn Traditional Skills and Knowledge
The Ottoman Empire’s technological and cultural achievements were lost when military priorities replaced civilian learning. Preserve essential knowledge and skills by learning traditional crafts, food preservation, basic medical care, and other capabilities that don’t depend on centralized systems. [Seven Holistics](https://sevenholistics.com) provides comprehensive training in traditional wellness practices and self-sufficient living skills that remain valuable regardless of political circumstances.
—
[SPONSORED CONTENT]
The 4ft Farm Blueprint: Food Security in Any Crisis
When military rule disrupts supply chains—as it did in the Ottoman Empire and countless other historical examples—those with local food production survive while others suffer. The [4ft Farm Blueprint](https://4ftfarmblueprint.com/clean1-vid.html) shows you how to produce fresh food year-round in just 4 square feet, regardless of climate or political conditions. This isn’t just gardening—it’s insurance against the kind of supply chain disruptions that always accompany domestic military deployment. Learn the system that’s helping thousands of families build food independence before they need it.
—
The choice facing America today is the same one that faced Sultan Mahmud II in 1826: will we choose the temporary security of military rule, or will we preserve the long-term freedom of civilian governance? History shows us that this choice, once made, is almost impossible to reverse. The time to prepare—and to resist—is now, while we still can.
—
Sources
1. NBC News: “West Virginia governor deploys hundreds of National Guard troops to DC at Trump team’s request” – https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/west-virginia-governor-deploys-national-guard-dc-trump-police-takeover-rcna225386
2. Reuters: “West Virginia governor to deploy National Guard troops to US capital” – https://www.reuters.com/world/us/west-virginia-governor-deploy-national-guard-troops-us-capital-2025-08-16/
3. Wall Street Journal: “More National Guard Soldiers Head to D.C. and Prepare to Carry Weapons” – https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/national-guard-soldiers-prepare-to-carry-weapons-in-washington-d-c-3965923c
4. Britannica: “Auspicious Incident | Ottoman history” – https://www.britannica.com/topic/Auspicious-Incident
5. Wikipedia: “Auspicious Incident” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident
6. Academic Source: Sunar, M.M. “Cauldron of dissent: A study of the janissary corps, 1807–1826” (2006)
7. Academic Source: Kafadar, C. “Janissaries and other riffraff of Ottoman Istanbul: Rebels without a cause?” International Journal of Turkish Studies (2007)
—
*About the Author: Shamus Gerry III is a historical analyst and writer specializing in patterns of power and institutional collapse. His work focuses on identifying historical parallels that illuminate contemporary political developments.*