Turks are relatively young people. Its age is only over 600 years. The first Turks were a bunch of Turkmens, fugitives from Central Asia who fled from the Mongols to the west. They got to the Sultanate of Konya and asked for land for settlement. They were given a place on the border with the Nicene Empire near Bursa. There the fugitives began to settle down in the middle of the XIII century.
The main thing among the fugitive Turkmen was Ertogrul-bey. He called the territory allocated to him the Ottoman Beilik. And taking into account the fact that the Sultan of Kony lost all power, he became an independent ruler. Ertogrul died in 1281 and power passed to his son Osman I Gazi... It was he who is considered the founder of the Ottoman sultan dynasty and the first ruler of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire existed from 1299 to 1922 and played a significant role in world history.
Ottoman sultan with his warriors
An important factor contributing to the formation of a powerful Turkish state was the fact that the Mongols, having reached Antioch, did not go further, since they considered Byzantium their ally. Therefore, they did not touch the lands on which the Ottoman beylik was located, believing that it would soon become part of the Byzantine Empire.
And Osman Gazi, like the crusaders, declared a holy war, but only for the Muslim faith. He began to invite everyone to take part in it. And seekers of fortune began to flock to Osman from all over the Muslim East. They were ready to fight for the faith of Islam until their sabers became blunt and until they received enough wealth and wives. And in the east, this was considered a very great achievement.
Thus, the Ottoman army began to replenish with Circassians, Kurds, Arabs, Seljuks, and Turkmens. That is, anyone could come, pronounce the formula of Islam and become a Turk. And on the occupied lands, such people began to allocate small plots of land for farming. Such a site was called "timar". He imagined a house with a garden.
The owner of the timar became a rider (spagi). His duty was to appear at the first call to the Sultan in full armor and on his own horse to serve in the cavalry army. It was noteworthy that the Spagi did not pay taxes in the form of money, since they paid the tax with their own blood.
With such an internal organization, the territory of the Ottoman state began to expand rapidly. In 1324, Osman's son Orhan I captured the city of Bursa and made it his capital. From Bursa to Constantinople a stone's throw, and the Byzantines lost control of the northern and western regions of Anatolia. And in 1352 the Ottoman Turks crossed the Dardanelles and ended up in Europe. After that, a gradual and steady conquest of Thrace began.
In Europe, it was impossible to manage with cavalry alone, so there was an urgent need for infantry. And then the Turks created a completely new army, consisting of infantry, which they called janissaries(young - new, charik - army: it turns out a janissary).
The conquerors took by force from the Christian nations boys between the ages of 7 and 14 and converted them to Islam. These children were well fed, taught the laws of Allah, military affairs and made infantrymen (janissaries). These warriors turned out to be the finest foot soldiers in all of Europe. Neither the knightly cavalry nor the Persian kyzylbashs could break through the ranks of the janissaries.
Janissaries - Ottoman army infantry
And the secret of the invincibility of the Turkish infantry lay in the spirit of military comradeship. Janissaries from the first days lived together, ate from the same cauldron delicious porridge, and, despite the fact that they belonged to different peoples, they were people of the same destiny. When they became adults, they got married, had families, but continued to live in the barracks. Only during the holidays did they visit their wives and children. That is why they did not know defeat and represented the loyal and reliable force of the Sultan.
However, going out to Mediterranean, The Ottoman Empire could not be limited to only one janissary. Since there is water, then ships are needed, and there was a need for a navy. The Turks began to recruit pirates, adventurers and vagabonds from all over the Mediterranean to the navy. Italians, Greeks, Berbers, Danes, Norwegians went to serve them. This public had no faith, no honor, no law, no conscience. Therefore, they willingly converted to the Muslim faith, since they had no faith at all, and they absolutely did not care who they were, Christians or Muslims.
From this motley public, a fleet was formed that looked more like a pirate than a military one. He began to rage in the Mediterranean, so much so that he terrified Spanish, French and Italian ships. The very same sailing in the Mediterranean Sea began to be considered dangerous business... Turkish corsair squadrons were based in Tunisia, Algeria and other Muslim lands with access to the sea.
Ottoman military fleet
Thus, from completely different peoples and tribes, such a people as the Turks was formed. Islam and a common military destiny became the connecting link. During successful campaigns, Turkish soldiers captured captives, made them their wives and concubines, and children from women of different nationalities became full-fledged Turks who were born on the territory of the Ottoman Empire.
A small principality that appeared on the territory of Asia Minor in the middle of the 13th century, very quickly turned into a powerful Mediterranean power, called the Ottoman Empire after the first ruler, Osman I Gazi. The Ottoman Turks also called their state the High Port, and they called themselves not Turks, but Muslims. As for the real Turks, they were considered the Turkmen population living in the interior regions of Asia Minor. These people were conquered by the Ottomans in the 15th century after the capture of Constantinople on May 29, 1453.
European states could not resist the Ottoman Turks. Sultan Mehmed II captured Constantinople and made it his capital - Istanbul. In the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire significantly expanded its territories, and with the capture of Egypt, the Turkish fleet began to dominate the Red Sea. By the second half of the 16th century, the population of the state reached 15 million people, and the Turkish Empire itself began to be compared with the Roman Empire.
But by the end of the 17th century, the Ottoman Turks suffered a series of major defeats in Europe.... The Russian Empire played an important role in weakening the Turks. She always beat the warlike descendants of Osman I. She took away from them the Crimea, the Black Sea coast, and all these victories became a harbinger of the decline of the state, which in the 16th century shone in the rays of its power.
But the Ottoman Empire was weakened not only by endless wars, but also by the ugly farming. The officials squeezed all the juices out of the peasants, and therefore they ran the economy in a predatory way. This has led to the emergence of a large number of wastelands. And this is in the "fertile crescent", which in ancient times fed almost the entire Mediterranean.
Ottoman Empire on the map, XIV-XVII centuries
It all ended in disaster in the 19th century, when the state treasury was empty. The Turks began to borrow loans from French capitalists. But it soon became clear that they could not pay the debts, since after the victories of Rumyantsev, Suvorov, Kutuzov, Dibich, the Turkish economy was completely undermined. Then the French brought a navy into the Aegean and demanded customs in all ports, mining as a concession, and the right to collect taxes until the debt was repaid.
After that, the Ottoman Empire was called "the sick man of Europe." She began to quickly lose the conquered lands and turn into a semi-colony of European powers. The last autocratic sultan of the empire, Abdul-Hamid II, tried to save the situation. However, under him, the political crisis worsened even more. In 1908, the Sultan was overthrown and imprisoned by the Young Turks (a pro-Western republican political trend).
On April 27, 1909, the Young Turks elevated to the throne the constitutional monarch Mehmed V, who was the brother of the ousted sultan. After that, the Young Turks entered the First World War on the side of Germany and were defeated and destroyed. There was nothing good about their rule. They promised freedom, but ended up with a terrible massacre of the Armenians, stating that they were against the new regime. And they really were against it, since nothing had changed in the country. Everything remained the same as before it was 500 years under the rule of the sultans.
After defeat in World War I, the Turkish Empire began to agonize... Anglo-French troops occupied Constantinople, the Greeks captured Smyrna and moved inland. Mehmed V died on July 3, 1918 of a heart attack. And on October 30 of the same year, the Mudros truce, shameful for Turkey, was signed. The Young Turks fled abroad, leaving the last Ottoman Sultan Mehmed VI in power. He became a puppet in the hands of the Entente.
But then the unexpected happened. In 1919, a national liberation movement was born in the distant mountain provinces. It was headed by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He led the common people. He very quickly drove out the Anglo-French and Greek invaders from his lands and restored Turkey within the borders that exist today. On November 1, 1922, the sultanate was abolished. Thus, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. On November 17, the last Turkish Sultan Mehmed VI left the country and went to Malta. He died in 1926 in Italy.
And in the country on October 29, 1923, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey announced the creation of the Turkish Republic. It exists to this day, and its capital is the city of Ankara. As for the Turks themselves, they have lived quite happily for the last decades. They sing in the morning, dance in the evening, and pray during breaks. May Allah protect them!
(since the end of Byzantium), was formed in Anatolia by the tribes of the Turks. The state existed until 1922 - the moment of formation Turkish Republic... Named for the first sultan - the founder
At the beginning of his reign, the Sultan expanded his inheritance, annexing territories from the Marmara and Black Sea, a significant part of the land to the west of the Sakarya River.
After the death of Osman, Orhan ascended the throne. During his reign, the capital of the state - Bursa (a former Byzantine city) was approved.
After Orhan, his eldest son Murad 1 became the ruler. This great statesman managed to strengthen the presence of the troops of his state in Europe. Murad 1 defeated the Serbian prince in 1389. As a result of this battle, the Ottoman Empire acquired most of the southern Danube territory.
The system of government in the country was based on a combination of Byzantine, Seljuk and Arab traditions and customs. On the lands that the Ottomans conquered, they tried to preserve local traditions as much as possible, not to destroy the historically established relations.
The territory of the Ottoman Empire expanded even more during the reign of the son of Murad 1, Bayazid 1. The most significant victory was the battle of Nikopol in 1396 (on the Danube). However, despite the external well-being, the Ottoman Empire experienced quite serious difficulties, both external and internal. Mostly, the ruler's mannered behavior, his huge harem, and exquisite ceremonies in the palace irritated many gazis. In addition, Bayazid's campaigns against Muslims and other Gazis in Asia Minor also caused concern. As a result, most of the local beys went over to Tamerlane and were persuaded to start against Ottoman ruler war.
As a result of the battle in 1402, Bayezid's army was defeated, and the ruler himself was captured. The Ottoman Empire was fragmented as a result of the subsequent campaigns of Tamerlane. However, the sultans retained power over some territories of the country.
During the 15th century, the Ottoman state pursued a policy of internal restructuring and external expansion and strengthening of borders.
The 16th century became "golden" for the empire. During this period, Suleiman 1 ruled the country, giving great importance strengthening the sea power of the state. The middle of the 16th century was the flourishing of architecture and literature.
The Ottoman Empire at that time was dominated by feudal relations, and the military organization and administrative system were structured by law.
It should be noted that after this time (after the reign of Suleiman 1), most of the sultans turned out to be rather weak rulers. At the beginning of the 17th century, a government reform was carried out in the state. Earlier in the empire there was a rather cruel tradition - the sultan who came to the throne killed all his brothers. Since 1603, the brothers of the rulers and their relatives were imprisoned in a special, remote part of the palace, where they spent their whole lives, until the death of the ruler. When the Sultan was dying, the eldest of the prisoners came to take his place. As a result, almost all the sultans who reigned in the 17-18 centuries were not intellectually developed and, of course, did not have any political experience. Due to the fact that there was no worthy ruler, the huge country began to lose its unity, and the power itself began to weaken very quickly.
As a result, the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century lost most of its power in the Mediterranean. The end of the Seven Years' War provoked new attacks on the state. Thus, the empire acquired, in addition to the old enemy of Austria, a new enemy - Russia.
1. The decline of the Turkish military-feudal state
TO mid XVI 1st century clearly marked the decline of the Ottoman Empire, which began in the previous century. Turkey still owned vast territories in Asia, Europe and Africa, had important trade routes and strategic positions, and had many peoples and tribes under its control. The Turkish Sultan - the Great Senor, or the Great Turk, as he was called in European documents - was still considered one of the most powerful sovereigns. The military might of the Turks also seemed formidable. But in reality, the roots of the former power of the Sultan's empire were already undermined.
The Ottoman Empire had no internal unity. Its individual parts differed sharply from each other in ethnic composition, language and religion of the population, in the level of social, economic and cultural development, in the degree of dependence on central government... The Turks themselves were a minority in the empire. Only in Asia Minor and in the part of Rumelia (European Turkey), adjacent to Istanbul, did they live in large compact masses. In the rest of the provinces, they were scattered among the indigenous population, which they never managed to assimilate.
Turkish rule over the oppressed peoples of the empire was thus based almost exclusively on military violence alone. This kind of domination could continue for a more or less long period only if there were sufficient funds to carry out this violence. Meanwhile, the military power of the Ottoman Empire was steadily declining. The military-fief system of land tenure, inherited by the Ottomans from the Seljuks and at one time one of the most important reasons for the success of Turkish weapons, has lost its former significance. Formally, legally, it continued to exist. But its actual content changed so much that from a factor in strengthening and enriching the Turkish feudal lords of the class, it turned into a source of its ever-increasing weakness.
Decay of the military-fief system of land tenure
The military-feudal nature of the Ottoman Empire determined its entire domestic and foreign policy. Prominent Turkish politician and writer of the 17th century. Kochibey Gyomurdzhinsky noted in his "risal" (treatise) that the Ottoman state "was obtained with a saber and only can be supported with a saber." For several centuries, obtaining military booty, slaves and tribute from the conquered lands was the main means of enriching Turkish feudal lords, and direct military violence against the conquered peoples and the Turkish laboring masses was the main function of state power. Therefore, since the inception of the Ottoman state, the Turkish ruling class has directed all its energy and attention to the creation and maintenance of a combat-ready army. A decisive role in this regard was played by the military-feudal system of land tenure, which provided for the formation and supply of the feudal army by the military feudalists themselves - the sipahs, who for this purpose received large and small estates (zeamets and timars) from the state land fund on conditional ownership rights with the right to collect a certain part rent-tax in their favor. Although this system did not extend to all territories captured by the Turks, its importance was decisive for the Turkish military-feudal state as a whole.
At first, the military-fief system operated clearly. It directly arose from the interest of the Turkish feudal lords in an active policy of conquest and, in turn, stimulated this interest. Numerous military fiefs - loans (owners of zeamets) and timariots (owners of timars) - were not only a military, but also the main political force of the Ottoman Empire; they constituted, in the words of a Turkish source, "a real army for the faith and state." The military-fief system freed the state budget from the main part of the expenditures for the maintenance of the army and ensured the rapid mobilization of the feudal army. The Turkish infantry - the Janissaries, as well as some other corps of government troops were on a monetary salary, but the military-fief system of land tenure indirectly influenced them, opening up before the commanders and even ordinary soldiers a tempting prospect of obtaining military fiefs and thereby becoming sipahs.
The military-fief system at first did not have a destructive effect on the peasant economy. Of course, the peasant paradise ( Raya (raaya, reaya) - the general name of the taxable population in the Ottoman Empire, "subjects"; later (not earlier than the end of the 18th century) only non-Muslims began to be called paradise.), devoid of any political rights, was in feudal dependence on the sipakhi and was subjected to feudal exploitation. But this exploitation at first was predominantly fiscal and more or less patriarchal in nature. As long as the Sipahis were enriching themselves mainly from military booty, he considered land ownership not as the main, but as an auxiliary source of income. He usually confined himself to the collection of the rent-tax and the role of political overlord and did not interfere with economic activity peasants who used their land plots on the basis of inheritance rights. At natural forms farms, such a system provided the peasants with the possibility of a tolerable existence.
However, in its original form, the military-fief system did not function in Turkey for long. The internal contradictions inherent in it began to manifest themselves soon after the first large Turkish conquests. Born in war and for war, this system required continuous or almost continuous waging of aggressive wars, which served as the main source of enrichment for the ruling class. But this source was not inexhaustible. The Turkish conquests were accompanied by enormous destruction, and the material values extracted from the conquered countries were quickly and unproductively wasted. On the other hand, the conquests, expanding feudal land tenure and creating for the feudal lords a certain guarantee of the unhindered exploitation of the estates they received, raised in their eyes the value of landed property and increased its attractive power.
The greed of the feudal lords for money increased with the development of commodity-money relations in the country, and especially foreign trade relations, which made it possible to satisfy the growing demand of the Turkish nobility for luxury goods.
All this caused the Turkish feudal lords to strive to increase the size of estates and the income received from them. V late XVI v. the prohibition of the concentration of several fiefs in the same hands, established by previous laws, ceased to be observed. In the 17th century, especially in the second half of it, the process of concentration of land ownership intensified. Large estates began to be created, the owners of which sharply increased feudal duties, introduced arbitrary extortions, and in some cases, although still rare at that time, created a lordly smell in their own estates, the so-called chiftliks ( Chiftlik (from the Turkish "chift" - a pair, meaning a pair of oxen, with the help of which the land plot is processed) in the period under review - a private feudal estate formed on state land. The Chiftlik system became most widespread later, at the end of the XVIII - early XIX c., when the landowners - chiftlikchi began to seize peasant lands on a massive scale; in Serbia, where this process took place in especially violent forms, it received the Slavic name of veneration.).
The very mode of production did not change from this, but the attitude of the feudal lord to the peasants, to land ownership, to his duties to the state changed. The old exploiter, the sipahi, who had war in the foreground and who was most interested in booty of war, was replaced by a new, much more money-hungry feudal landowner, whose main goal was to obtain the maximum income from the exploitation of peasant labor. The new landowners, in contrast to the old ones, were actually and sometimes formally released from military obligations to the state. Thus, at the expense of the state-feudal land fund, large private-feudal property grew. The sultans also contributed to this, distributing to dignitaries, pashas of the provinces, court favorites, vast estates in unconditional possession. The former war lords sometimes also managed to turn into landowners of a new type, but more often the Timariots and loans were ruined, and their lands passed to new feudal owners. Directly or indirectly, usurious capital also became involved in land ownership. But, while promoting the disintegration of the military-fief system, he did not create a new, more progressive mode of production. As K. Marx noted, “under Asian forms, usury can exist for a very long time, without causing anything other than economic decline and political corruption "; "... it is conservative and only brings the existing mode of production to a more miserable state" ( K. Marks, Capital, vol. III, pp. 611, 623.).
The decay, and then the crisis of the military-fief system of land tenure, entailed a crisis of the Turkish military-feudal state as a whole. It was not a crisis in the mode of production. Turkish feudalism at that time was still far from the stage at which a capitalist structure emerges, entering into a struggle with the old forms of production and the old political superstructure. Elements of capitalist relations observed in the period under review in the urban economy, especially in Istanbul and in general in the European provinces of the empire - the emergence of some manufactories, the partial use of hired labor in state enterprises, etc. - were very weak and fragile. In agriculture, there were no even weak shoots of new forms of production. The disintegration of the Turkish military-fief system resulted not so much from changes in the mode of production as from those contradictions that were rooted in it and developed without going beyond the framework of feudal relations. But thanks to this process, significant changes took place in the agrarian system of Turkey and shifts within the class of feudal lords. Ultimately, it was the disintegration of the military-fief system that caused the decline of the Turkish military power, which, due to the specifically military nature of the Ottoman state, was of decisive importance for its entire further development.
Decline in the military power of the Turks. Defeat at Vienna and its aftermath
By the middle of the 17th century. the crisis of the military-fief system of land tenure has gone far. Its consequences were manifested in the strengthening of feudal oppression (as evidenced by numerous cases peasant uprisings, as well as the mass flight of peasants to the cities and even outside the empire), and in the reduction of the Sipakhi army (under Suleiman the Magnificent, it numbered 200 thousand people, and by the end of the 17th century - only 20 thousand), and in decomposition like this troops and janissaries, and in the further collapse of the government apparatus, and in the growth of financial difficulties.
Several Turkish statesmen tried to delay this process. The most prominent among them were the great viziers from the Köprülü family, who carried out in the second half of the 17th century. a number of measures aimed at streamlining management, strengthening discipline in the state apparatus and the army, and regulating the tax system. However, all these measures led to only partial and short-term improvements.
Turkey also weakened relatively - in comparison with its main military opponents, the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. In most of these countries, although feudalism still prevailed in them, new productive forces gradually grew, and the capitalist system developed. There were no prerequisites for this in Turkey. Already after the great geographical discoveries, when the process of initial accumulation took place in the advanced European countries, Turkey found itself on the sidelines of the economic development of Europe. Further, in Europe, nations and national states were formed, either single-national or multinational, but in this case, too, led by some strong emerging nation. Meanwhile, the Turks not only could not unite all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire into a single "Ottoman" nation, but they themselves lagged more and more in socio-economic, and therefore in national development, from many of the peoples under their control, especially the Balkans.
Not profitable for Turkey in the middle of the 17th century. the international situation in Europe also developed. The Peace of Westphalia raised the importance of France and diminished her interest in receiving aid from the Turkish sultan against the Habsburgs. In its anti-Habsburg policy, France began to focus more on Poland, as well as on small German states. On the other hand, after the Thirty Years' War, which undermined the position of the emperor in Germany, the Habsburgs concentrated all their efforts on the fight against the Turks, seeking to take away Eastern Hungary from them. Finally, an important change in the balance of power in Eastern Europe came about as a result of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. Turkish aggression now met with much more powerful resistance in Ukraine. The Polish-Turkish contradictions also deepened.
The military weakening of Turkey and its growing lag behind the European states soon affected the course of hostilities in Europe. In 1664, a large Turkish army suffered a heavy defeat at Saint-Gotthard (Western Hungary) from the Austrians and Hungarians, who this time were joined by a detachment of the French. True, this defeat has not yet stopped the Turkish aggression. In the early 70s, the troops of the Turkish sultan and his vassal, the Crimean Khan, invaded Poland and Ukraine several times, reaching the Dnieper River itself, and in 1683, Turkey, taking advantage of the struggle of a part of the Hungarian feudal lords led by Emerik Tekeli against the Habsburgs, undertook a new attempt to defeat Austria. However, it was this attempt that led to the disaster near Vienna.
Initially, the campaign developed successfully for the Turks. A huge, more than one hundred thousand-strong army led by the great vizier Kara Mustafa defeated the Austrians in Hungary, then invaded Austria and on July 14, 1683 approached Vienna. The siege of the Austrian capital lasted two months. The position of the Austrians was very difficult. Emperor Leopold, his court and ministers fled from Vienna. The rich and the nobility began to flee after them, until the Turks closed the siege ring. Mainly artisans, students and peasants who came from the suburbs burned down by the Turks remained to defend the capital. The troops of the garrison numbered only 10 thousand people and had an insignificant amount of guns and ammunition. The defenders of the city weakened every day, and soon the famine began. Turkish artillery destroyed a significant part of the fortifications.
The turning point came on the night of September 12, 1683, when the Polish king Jan Sobieski approached Vienna with a small (25 thousand people), but fresh and well-armed army, consisting of Poles and Ukrainian Cossacks. Saxon troops also joined Jan Sobieski near Vienna.
The next morning a battle took place, which ended in the complete defeat of the Turks. Turkish troops left on the battlefield 20 thousand killed, all the artillery and the baggage train. Surviving the Turkish units rolled back to Buda and Pest, having lost another 10 thousand people while crossing the Danube. Pursuing the Turks, Jan Sobieski inflicted a new defeat on them, after which Kara Mustafa Pasha fled to Belgrade, where he was killed by order of the Sultan.
The defeat of the Turkish armed forces under the walls of Vienna was the inevitable result long before this beginning of the decline of the Turkish military-feudal state. Regarding this event, K. Marx wrote: “... There is absolutely no reason to believe that the decline of Turkey began from the moment when Sobieski helped the Austrian capital. Hammer's studies (Austrian historian of Turkey - Ed. Irrefutably prove that the organization of the Turkish Empire was then in a state of decay, and that already some time before that the era of Ottoman power and greatness was rapidly coming to an end. Karl Marx, The Reorganization of the British War Office. - Austrian Requirements. - The Economic Situation of England. - Saint-Arno, K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch, vol. 10th ed. 2, p. 262.).
The defeat at Vienna ended the Turkish advance into Europe. From this time on, the Ottoman Empire began to gradually lose, one after another, the territories it had previously conquered.
In 1684, to fight against Turkey, the "Holy League" was formed in Austria, Poland, Venice, and from 1686 - in Russia. The military actions of Poland were unsuccessful, but the Austrian troops in 1687-1688. occupied Eastern Hungary, Slavonia, Banat, captured Belgrade and began to advance deep into Serbia. The actions of the Serbian volunteer army opposing the Turks, as well as the uprising of the Bulgarians that broke out in 1688 in Chiprovets, created a serious threat to Turkish communications. A number of defeats were inflicted on the Turks by Venice, which seized Morea and Athens.
In the difficult international situation of the 1890s, when the Austrian forces were distracted by the war with France (the war of the Augsburg League), the military actions of the "Holy League" against the Turks took on a protracted nature. Nevertheless, Turkey continued to fail. An important role in the military events of this period was played by Azov campaigns Peter I in 1695-1696, which facilitated the task of the Austrian command in the Balkans. In 1697, the Austrians utterly defeated a large Turkish army near the city of Zenta (Senta) on Tisza and invaded Bosnia.
Great assistance to Turkey was rendered by British and Dutch diplomacy, through which in October 1698 peace negotiations were opened in Karlovitsy (in Srem). The international situation was generally favorable to Turkey: Austria entered into separate negotiations with it in order to ensure its interests, to evade support of the Russian demands regarding Azov and Kerch; Poland and Venice were also ready to come to terms with the Turks at the expense of Russia; the intermediary powers (England and Holland) openly opposed Russia and generally helped the Turks more than the allies. However, the internal weakening of Turkey went so far that the sultan was ready to end the war at any cost. Therefore, the results of the Karlovytsky Congress turned out to be very unfavorable for Turkey.
In January 1699, treaties were signed between Turkey and each of the allies separately. Austria received Eastern Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia and almost all of Slavonia; only Banat (Temeshvar province) with fortresses returned to the Sultan. The peace treaty with Poland deprived the Sultan of the last remaining part of the Right-Bank Ukraine and Podolia with the Kamenets fortress. Venice, the Turks ceded part of Dalmatia and Morey. Russia, abandoned by its allies, was forced to sign not a peace treaty with the Turks in Karlovitsy, but only an armistice for a period of two years, which left Azov in its hands. Subsequently, in 1700, in development of the terms of this truce, a Russian-Turkish peace treaty was concluded in Istanbul, which secured Azov with the surrounding lands for Russia and canceled the payment by Russia of the annual “dacha” to the Crimean Khan.
Revolt of Patron-Khalil
At the beginning of the 18th century. Turkey had some military successes: the encirclement of the army of Peter I on the Prut in 1711, which resulted in the temporary loss of Azov by Russia; the seizure of the Seas and a number of the Aegean islands from the Venetians in the war of 1715-1718. etc. But these successes, explained by the conjunctural changes in the international situation and the fierce struggle between the European powers (Northern War, War of the Spanish Succession), were transient.
War of 1716-1718 with Austria brought Turkey new territorial losses in the Balkans, fixed in the Pozharevatsky (Passarovitsky) treaty. A few years later, under the treaty of 1724 with Russia, Turkey was forced to abandon its claims to the Caspian regions of Iran and the Transcaucasus. In the late 1920s, a powerful popular movement arose in Iran against the Turkish (and Afghan) conquerors. In 1730 Nadir Khan took a number of provinces and cities from the Turks. In this regard, the Iranian-Turkish war began, but even before its official announcement, failures in Iran served as the impetus for a major uprising that broke out in the fall of 1730 in Istanbul. The root causes of this uprising were related not so much to the external as to the internal policy of the Turkish government. Despite the fact that the Janissaries actively participated in the uprising, its main driving force there were artisans, small traders, and the urban poor.
Istanbul was already then a huge, multi-lingual and multi-tribal city. Its population probably exceeded 600 thousand people. In the first third of the 18th century. it still increased significantly due to the massive influx of peasants. This was partly due to the well-known growth of handicrafts and the emergence of manufacturing production, which was happening then in Istanbul, in the Balkan cities, as well as in the main centers of Levantine trade (Thessaloniki, Izmir, Beirut, Cairo, Alexandria). In Turkish sources of this period there is information about the creation in Istanbul of paper, cloth and some other manufactories; attempts were made to build a faience manufactory at the Sultan's palace; old enterprises expanded and new ones arose to serve the army and navy.
The development of production was one-sided. The domestic market was extremely narrow; production served mainly foreign trade and the needs of the feudal lords, the state and the army. Nevertheless, the small-scale urban industry of Istanbul had working population attractive force, especially since the capital's artisans enjoyed many privileges and tax benefits. However, the overwhelming majority of peasants who fled to Istanbul from their villages did not find permanent work here and joined the ranks of day laborers and homeless beggars. The government, taking advantage of the influx of newcomers, began to increase taxes, introduce new duties on handicraft products. Food prices have risen so much that the authorities, fearing unrest, were even forced several times to distribute free bread in mosques. The growing activity of usurious capital, which increasingly subordinated handicraft and small-scale commodity production to its control, responded heavily to the working masses of the capital.
The beginning of the 18th century marked by the widespread in Turkey, especially in the capital, European fashion. The sultan and nobles competed in inventing amusements, arranging festivities and feasts, building palaces and parks. In the vicinity of Istanbul, on the banks of a small river known to Europeans as the "Sweet Waters of Europe", the splendid Sultan's palace Saadabad and about 200 kiosks ("kiosks", small palaces) of the court nobility were built. Turkish nobles were especially sophisticated in cultivating tulips, decorating their gardens and parks with them. The passion for tulips manifested itself in architecture and painting. A special "tulip style" emerged. This time went down in Turkish history as the "tulip period" ("lale devri").
The luxurious life of the feudal nobility contrasted sharply with the growing poverty of the masses, increasing their discontent. The government did not consider this. Sultan Ahmed III (1703-1730), a greedy and insignificant person, cared only about money and pleasure. The actual ruler of the state was the great vizier Ibrahim Pasha Nevsehirli, who bore the title of Damada (the son-in-law of the Sultan). He was a prominent statesman. Taking the post of Grand Vizier in 1718, after signing an unprofitable treaty with Austria, he took a number of steps to improve the internal and international position of the empire. However, Damad Ibrahim Pasha replenished the state treasury by brutally increasing the tax burden. He encouraged the rapacity and waste of the nobility, and he himself was averse to corruption.
Tension in the Turkish capital reached its highest point in the summer and autumn of 1730, when the janissaries' discontent with the apparent inability of the government to defend the Turkish conquests in Iran was added to everything else. In early August 1730, the Sultan and the Grand Vizier set out at the head of the army from the capital, ostensibly on a campaign against the Iranians, but, having crossed to the Asian coast of the Bosphorus, they did not move further and began secret negotiations with Iranian representatives. Upon learning of this, the capital's janissaries called on the people of Istanbul to revolt.
The uprising began on September 28, 1730. Among its leaders were janissaries, artisans, and representatives of the Muslim clergy. The most prominent role was played by a native of the lower strata, a former small trader, later a sailor and janissary of Patrona-Khalil, an Albanian by origin, who, with his courage and disinterestedness, gained great popularity among the masses. The events of 1730 were therefore included in the historical literature under the name of the "uprising of the Patron-Khalil".
Already on the first day, the rebels defeated the palaces and kyoshkas of the court nobility and demanded from the Sultan to issue them a great vizier and four more high dignitaries. Hoping to save his throne and his life, Ahmed III ordered the death of Ibrahim Pasha and the return of his corpse. Nevertheless, the very next day, at the request of the rebels, Ahmed III had to abdicate in favor of his nephew Mahmud.
For about two months, power in the capital was actually in the hands of the rebels. Sultan Mahmud I (1730-1754) at first showed full agreement with Patron-Khalil. The Sultan ordered the destruction of the Saadabad Palace, canceled a number of taxes imposed under his predecessor, and made some changes in the government and administration at the direction of Patron-Khalil. Patrona-Khalil did not occupy a government post. He did not take advantage of his position to enrich himself. Even at the Divan meetings, he came in an old shabby dress.
However, neither Patron-Khalil, nor his associates had a positive program. Having dealt with the nobles hated by the people, they essentially did not know what to do next. Meanwhile, the sultan and his entourage drew up a secret plan of reprisal against the leaders of the uprising. On November 25, 1730, Patrona-Khalil and his closest assistants were invited to the Sultan's palace, ostensibly for negotiations, and were treacherously killed.
The Sultan's government returned entirely to the old methods of government. This caused a new uprising in March 1731. It was less strong than the previous one, and in it the masses of the people played a lesser role. The government suppressed it relatively quickly, but unrest continued until the end of April. Only after numerous executions, arrests and the expulsion from the capital of several thousand janissaries did the government take possession of the situation.
Strengthening the influence of the Western powers on Turkey. The emergence of the Eastern question
The Turkish ruling class still saw its salvation in wars. The main military opponents of Turkey at this time were Austria, Venice and Russia. In the 17th and early 18th centuries. the most acute were the Austro-Turkish contradictions, and later the Russian-Turkish ones. Russian-Turkish antagonism deepened as Russia moved to the Black Sea coast, and also due to the growth of national liberation movements of the oppressed peoples of the Ottoman Empire, who saw the Russian people as their ally.
The Turkish ruling circles took a particularly hostile position towards Russia, which they considered the main culprit for the unrest of the Balkan Christians and, in general, almost all the difficulties of the Sublime Port ( Sublime, or High Porta-Sultan government.). Therefore, the contradictions between Russia and Turkey in the second half of the XVIII century. increasingly led to armed conflicts. All this was used by France and England, who at that time increased their influence on the Sultan's government. Of all the European powers, they had the most serious trade interests in Turkey, the French owned rich trading posts in the ports of the Levant. On the embankments of Beirut or Izmir, one could often hear French rather than Turkish. By the end of the 18th century. trade turnover between France and the Ottoman Empire reached 50-70 million livres per year, which exceeded the turnover of all other European powers combined. The British also had significant economic positions in Turkey, especially on the Turkish coast of the Persian Gulf. The British trading post in Basra, associated with the East India Company, became a monopoly on the purchase of raw materials.
During this period, France and England, occupied by the colonial wars in America and India, did not yet set themselves the immediate task of seizing the territories of the Ottoman Empire. They preferred to temporarily support the weak power of the Turkish Sultan, which was most beneficial to them in terms of their commercial expansion. No other power and no other government that would replace Turkish rule, would not create such wide opportunities for foreign merchants of unhindered trade, would not put them in such favorable conditions compared to their own subjects. Hence the openly hostile attitude of France and England to liberation movements the oppressed peoples of the Ottoman Empire; this also largely explained their opposition to the advance of Russia to the shores of the Black Sea and the Balkans.
France and England, alternately, and in other cases and jointly, encouraged the Turkish government to act against Russia, although each new Russian-Turkish war invariably brought Turkey new defeats and new territorial losses. The Western powers were far from providing Turkey with any effective assistance. They even benefited from Turkey's defeats in its wars with Russia by forcing the Turkish government to provide them with new trade incentives.
During Russian-Turkish war 1735-1739, which arose largely due to the intrigues of French diplomacy, the Turkish army suffered a severe defeat at Stavuchany. Despite this, after Austria concluded a separate peace with Turkey, Russia, according to the Belgrade Peace Treaty of 1739, was forced to be content with the annexation of Zaporozhye and Azov. France, for the diplomatic services rendered to Turkey, received in 1740 a new surrender, which confirmed and expanded the privileges of French subjects in Turkey: low customs duties, exemption from taxes and fees, non-jurisdiction of the Turkish court, etc. At the same time, unlike previous letters of surrender the capitulation of 1740 was issued by the Sultan not only on his own behalf, but also as an obligation for all his future successors. Thus, capitulation privileges (which soon extended to the subjects of other European powers) were permanently secured as an international obligation of Turkey.
The Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774, prompted by the question of replacing the Polish throne, was also largely due to the harassment of French diplomacy. This war, marked by the brilliant victories of the Russian troops under the command of P.A.Rumyantsev and A.V. Suvorov and the defeat of the Turkish fleet in the Battle of Chesme, had especially grave consequences for Turkey.
A striking example of the selfish use of Turkey by the European powers was the policy of Austria at that time. She in every possible way incited the Turks to continue the unsuccessful war for them and pledged to provide them with economic and military assistance. For this, the Turks, when signing an agreement with Austria in 1771, paid the Austrians 3 million piastres in advance. However, Austria did not fulfill its obligations, evading even the diplomatic support of Turkey. Nevertheless, she not only kept the money she received from Turkey, but also took away from her in 1775 under the guise of a “remnant” of compensation for Bukovina.
The Kucuk-Kainardzhiyskiy peace treaty of 1774, which ended the Russian-Turkish war, marked new stage in the development of relations between the Ottoman Empire and the European powers.
Crimea was declared independent from Turkey (in 1783 it was annexed to Russia); the Russian border advanced from the Dnieper to the Bug; The Black Sea and the straits were open to Russian merchant shipping; Russia acquired the right of patronage to the Moldavian and Wallachian rulers, as well as Orthodox Church in Turkey; capitulation privileges were extended to Russian subjects in Turkey; Turkey had to pay a large contribution to Russia. But the significance of the Kyuchuk-Kainardzhiyskiy peace consisted not only in the fact that the Turks suffered territorial losses. This was not new for them, and the losses were not so great, since Catherine II, in connection with the partition of Poland and especially in connection with the Pugachev uprising, was in a hurry to end the Turkish war. Much more important for Turkey was that after the Kucuk-Kainardzhi peace, the balance of forces in the Black Sea basin radically changed: the sharp strengthening of Russia and the equally sharp weakening of the Ottoman Empire put on the order of the day the problem of Russia's access to the Mediterranean Sea and the complete elimination of Turkish rule in Europe. ... The solution to this problem, as Turkey's foreign policy increasingly lost its independence, acquired an international character. Russia, in its further advance to the Black Sea, to the Balkans, Istanbul and the straits, now faced not so much with Turkey itself as with the main European powers, which also put forward their claims to the "Ottoman inheritance" and openly interfered in both Russian-Turkish relations and in the relationship between the Sultan and his Christian subjects.
Since that time, the so-called Eastern question has existed, although the term itself began to be used somewhat later. The components of the Eastern question were, on the one hand, the internal disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, associated with the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples, and on the other hand, the struggle between the great European powers for the division of territories falling away from Turkey, primarily European ones.
In 1787, a new Russian-Turkish war began. Russia openly prepared for it, putting forward a plan for the complete expulsion of the Turks from Europe. But the initiative for the rupture this time also belonged to Turkey, which acted under the influence of British diplomacy, which sought to create a Turkish-Swedish-Prussian coalition against Russia.
The alliance with Sweden and Prussia was of little use to the Turks. Russian troops under the command of Suvorov defeated the Turks at Fokshany, Rymnik and Izmail. Austria took the side of Russia. Only thanks to the fact that the attention of Austria and then Russia was diverted by events in Europe, in connection with the formation of a counter-revolutionary coalition against France, Turkey was able to end the war with relatively small losses. The Sistov peace of 1791 with Austria was concluded on the basis of the status quo (the position that existed before the war), and according to the Yasi peace with Russia in 1792 (according to the old style of 1791), Turkey recognized the new Russian border along the Dniester, with the inclusion of Crimea and the Kuban as part of Russia, renounced claims to Georgia, confirmed the Russian protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia and other conditions of the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi treaty.
The French Revolution, having caused international complications in Europe, created a favorable situation for Turkey, which contributed to the postponement of the elimination of Turkish rule in the Balkans. But the process of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire continued. The Eastern question has become even more aggravated due to the growth of the national self-consciousness of the Balkan peoples. The contradictions between the European powers deepened, which put forward new claims to the "Ottoman inheritance": some of these powers acted openly, others - under the guise of "protecting" the Ottoman Empire from the encroachments of their rivals, but in all cases this policy led to a further weakening of Turkey and transformation its a country dependent on the European powers.
The economic and political crisis of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 18th century.
By the end of the 18th century. The Ottoman Empire entered a period of acute crisis that engulfed all branches of its economy, the armed forces, and the state apparatus. The peasants were exhausted under the yoke of feudal exploitation. According to rough estimates, in the Ottoman Empire at that time there were about a hundred different taxes, extortions and duties. The tax burden was compounded by the ransom system. The top dignitaries, with whom no one dared to compete, spoke at government auctions. Therefore, they received a ransom for a low fee. Sometimes the ransom was granted for life. The original tax collector usually sold the farm with a large premium to the usurer, who resold it again until the right to the tax fell into the hands of the direct tax collector, who reimbursed and covered his expenses by shamelessly robbing the peasants.
Tithing was collected in kind from all types of grain, horticultural crops, fish catch, etc. In fact, it reached a third or even half of the harvest. The best quality products were taken from the peasant, leaving him with the worst. In addition, the feudal lords demanded that the peasants perform various duties: building roads, supplying firewood, food, and sometimes corvee work. It was useless to complain, since the wali (governor-generals) and other high-ranking officials were themselves the largest landowners. If complaints sometimes reached the capital and from there they sent an official to investigate, then the pashas and beys got off with a bribe, and the peasants bore additional burdens of feeding and maintaining the auditor.
The Christian peasants were subjected to double oppression. The personal tax on non-Muslims - jizya, now also called kharaj, increased sharply in size and was levied on everyone, even babies. Added to this was religious oppression. Any janissary could commit violence against a non-Muslim with impunity. Non-Muslims were not allowed to have weapons, wear the same clothes and shoes as Muslims; the Muslim court did not recognize the testimony of the "false"; even in official documents, contemptuous and abusive nicknames were used in relation to non-Muslims.
Turkish agriculture collapsed every year. In many areas, entire villages were left without residents. The Sultan's decree in 1781 directly recognized that "the poor subjects flee, which is one of the reasons for the devastation of my highest empire." The French writer Volney, who traveled to the Ottoman Empire in 1783-1785, noted in his book that the degradation of agriculture, which had intensified about 40 years earlier, had led to the desolation of entire villages. The farmer has no incentive to expand production: “he sows exactly as much as it takes to live,” this author reported.
Peasant unrest spontaneously arose not only in non-Turkish regions, where the anti-feudal movement was combined with the liberation movement, but also in Turkey itself. Crowds of destitute, homeless peasants roamed across Anatolia and Rumelia. Sometimes they formed armed detachments and attacked the estates of feudal lords. Unrest also took place in the cities. In 1767 the Kars Pasha was killed. To pacify the population, troops were sent from Van. Then there was an uprising in Aydin, where the inhabitants killed the tax farmer. In 1782, the Russian ambassador reported to St. Petersburg that "the confusion in various Anatolian regions from day to day more and more worries the clergy and the ministry".
Attempts by individual peasants - both non-Muslims and Muslims - to quit farming were thwarted by legislative and administrative measures. A special tax was introduced for the abandonment of agriculture, which strengthened the attachment of peasants to the land. In addition, the feudal lord and the usurer kept the peasants in deep debt. The feudal lord had the right to forcibly return the departed peasant and force him to pay taxes for the entire period of his absence.
The situation in the cities was nevertheless somewhat better than in the countryside. In the interests of their own safety, the city authorities, and in the capital, the government itself tried to provide the citizens with food. They took grain from the peasants at a fixed price, introduced grain monopolies, and prohibited the export of grain from the cities.
Turkish handicrafts during this period were not yet suppressed by the competition of European industry. Still famous at home and abroad were satin and velvet Bars, Ankara shawls, long-haired Izmir fabrics, Edirne soap and rose oil, Anatolian carpets, and especially the works of Istanbul artisans: dyed and embroidered fabrics, mother-of-pearl inlays, silver and ivory products , carved weapons, etc.
But the economy of the Turkish city also showed signs of decline. Unsuccessful wars, territorial losses of the empire reduced the already limited demand for Turkish handicrafts and manufactures. Medieval guilds (esnafs) hindered the development of commodity production. The state of handicrafts was also affected by the demoralizing influence of trade and usurious capital. In the 20s of the XVIII century. the government introduced a system of gediks (patents) for artisans and traders. Even the profession of a boatman, peddler, or street singer could not be pursued without a gedik. By lending money to artisans for the purchase of gediks, the usurers put the workshops in an enslaving dependence on themselves.
The development of crafts and trade was also hindered by internal customs, the presence of different measures of length and weight in each province, the arbitrariness of the authorities and local feudal lords, and robbery on trade routes. Insecurity of property killed any desire among artisans and merchants to expand their activities.
The damage to the coin by the government had disastrous consequences. The Hungarian Baron de Tott, who served the Turks as a military expert, wrote in his memoirs: “The coin is spoiled to such an extent that counterfeiters are now working in Turkey for the benefit of the population: no matter what alloy they use, the coin minted by the Great Seigneur is still lower in cost ".
Fires, epidemics of plague and other infectious diseases raged in the cities. Frequent natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods, completed the devastation of the people. The government restored mosques, palaces, janissary barracks, but did not provide assistance to the population. Many passed to the position of domestic slaves or joined the ranks of the lumpen proletariat along with the peasants who fled from the village.
Against the gloomy background of the people's ruin and poverty, the squandering of the upper classes stood out even more clearly. Huge sums were spent on the maintenance of the Sultan's court. There were more than 12 thousand titled persons, wives and concubines of the Sultan, servants, pashas, eunuchs, guards. The palace, especially its female half (harem), was the focus of intrigue and secret conspiracies. The court favorites, the sultans, and among them the most influential - the mother sultana (valid sultan), received bribes from dignitaries seeking a profitable position, from provincial pashas who sought to hide the received taxes, from foreign ambassadors. One of the highest places in the palace hierarchy was occupied by the head of the black eunuchs - kyzlar-agasy (literally - the head of the girls). He had in his jurisdiction not only the harem, but also the personal treasury of the Sultan, the waqfs of Mecca and Medina, and a number of other sources of income and enjoyed great de facto power. Kyzlar-agasy Beshir for 30 years, until the middle of the 18th century, exerted a decisive influence on state affairs. In the past, a slave, bought in Abyssinia for 30 piastres, he left behind 29 million piastres in money, 160 luxurious armor and 800 watches decorated with precious stones. His successor, also named Beshir, enjoyed the same power, but did not get along with the higher clergy, was removed and then strangled. After that, the leaders of the black eunuchs became more careful and tried not to interfere openly in government affairs. Nevertheless, they retained their secret influence.
Corruption in the ruling circles of Turkey was caused, in addition to the deep reasons for social order, also by the obvious degeneration that befell the Ottoman dynasty. The sultans have long ceased to be generals. They also had no experience in government, since before accession to the throne they lived for many years in strict isolation in the inner chambers of the palace. By the time of his accession (which could have happened very long ago, since the succession to the throne was proceeding in Turkey not in a straight line, but according to the seniority in the dynasty), the crown prince was for the most part a morally and physically degenerated person. Such was, for example, Sultan Abdul-Hamid I (1774-1789), who before accession to the throne spent 38 years in prison in a palace. The great vezirs (sadrazams), as a rule, were also insignificant and ignorant people who received appointments through bribery and bribes. In the past, this position was often held by capable statesmen. Such were, for example, in the XVI century. the famous Mehmed Sokollu, in the 17th century. - the Köprülü family, at the beginning of the 18th century. - Damad Ibrahim Pasha. Even in the middle of the 18th century. the post of sadrazama was held by a prominent statesman Ragib Pasha. But after the death of Ragib Pasha in 1763, the feudal clique no longer allowed any strong and independent personality to come to power. On rare occasions, the great viziers remained in office for two or three years; for the most part they were replaced several times a year. Resignation was almost always followed immediately by execution. Therefore, the great viziers were in a hurry to use the few days of their lives and their power in order to plunder as much as possible and waste the plunder just as quickly.
Many positions in the empire were officially sold. For the post of ruler of Moldavia or Wallachia it was necessary to pay 5-6 million piastres, not counting gifts to the Sultan and bribes. The bribe is so firmly established in the habits of the Turkish administration that in the 17th century. under the Ministry of Finance, there was even a special "bribe accounting", which had as its function the accounting of bribes received by officials, with the deduction of a certain share to the treasury. The positions of kadis (judges) were also sold. In reimbursement of the money paid, the cadis enjoyed the right to charge a certain percentage (up to 10%) from the amount of the claim, and this amount was paid not by the loser, but by the winner of the lawsuit, which encouraged the presentation of deliberately unfair claims. In criminal cases, bribery of judges was practiced openly.
The peasantry especially suffered from the judges. Contemporaries noted that "the primary concern of the villagers is to conceal the fact of the crime from the knowledge of the judges, whose presence is more dangerous than the presence of thieves."
The decomposition of the army, especially the janissary corps, reached a great depth. The Janissaries became the main bulwark of reaction. They opposed any kind of reform. Janissary revolts became commonplace, and since the Sultan had no other military support, except for the Janissaries, he tried in every possible way to appease them. Upon accession to the throne, the Sultan paid them the traditional reward - "julus bakhshishi" ("gift of ascension"). The amount of remuneration increased in the case of the participation of the Janissaries in the coup that led to the change of the Sultan. Entertainment and theatrical performances were arranged for the Janissaries. A delay in the salaries of the Janissaries could have cost the minister's life. Once on the day of bayram ( muslim holiday) the master of ceremonies of the court mistakenly allowed the heads of the artillery and cavalry corps to kiss the sultan's mantle earlier than the janissary agu; the sultan immediately ordered the execution of the master of ceremonies.
In the provinces, the janissaries often subjugated the pasha, held the entire administration in their hands, and arbitrarily collected taxes and various levies from artisans and merchants. Janissaries often engaged in trade themselves, taking advantage of the fact that they did not pay any taxes and were subject only to their superiors. The lists of the Janissaries included many people who were not involved in military affairs. Since the salary of the Janissaries was issued upon presentation of special tickets (esame), these tickets became the subject of purchase and sale; a large number of they were in the hands of usurers and court favorites.
Discipline dropped sharply in other military units as well. The number of Sipakhi cavalry for 100 years, from the end of the 17th to the end of the 18th century, decreased 10 times: for the war with Russia in 1787, it was possible with difficulty to collect 2 thousand horsemen. The Sipah feudal lords were always the first to flee from the battlefield.
Among the military command, embezzlement reigned. The money intended for the army in the field or for the fortress garrisons, half was plundered in the capital, and the lion's share of the rest was appropriated by the commanders on the ground.
Military equipment froze in the form in which it existed in the 16th century. Marble cores were still used, as in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent. Casting cannons, making guns and swords - all the production of military equipment by the end of the 18th century. lagged behind Europe by at least a century and a half. The soldiers wore heavy and uncomfortable clothes and used various weapons. European armies were trained in the art of maneuvering, and the Turkish army acted on the battlefield in a continuous and disorderly mass. The Turkish fleet, which once dominated the entire Mediterranean basin, lost its former importance after the defeat of Chesme in 1770.
The weakening of the central government, the collapse of the government apparatus and the army contributed to the growth of centrifugal tendencies in the Ottoman Empire. The struggle against Turkish rule was incessantly fought in the Balkans, in the Arab countries, in the Caucasus and in other lands of the empire. By the end of the 18th century. the separatist movements of the Turkish feudal lords themselves also acquired enormous proportions. Sometimes they were well-born feudal lords from the old families of military fiefs, sometimes representatives of the new feudal nobility, sometimes just lucky adventurers who managed to plunder wealth and recruit their own mercenary army. They left the subordination of the sultan and turned in fact into independent kings. The Sultan's government was powerless to fight them and considered itself satisfied when it sought to receive at least part of the taxes and preserve the appearance of the Sultan's sovereignty.
In Epirus and in southern Albania, Ali Pasha of Tepelena rose to prominence, who later gained great fame under the name of Ali Pasha of Yaninsky. On the Danube, in Vidin, the Bosnian feudal lord Omer Pazvand-oglu recruited a whole army and became the actual master of the Vidin district. The government succeeded in seizing him and executing him, but soon his son Osman Pazvand-oglu spoke out even more decisively against the central government. Even in Anatolia, where the feudal lords had not yet rebelled openly against the Sultan, real feudal principalities emerged: the feudal clan Karaosman-oglu owned lands in the south-west and west, between Big Menderes and the Sea of Marmara; the Chapan-oglu clan - in the center, in the Ankara and Yozgada regions; the genus of Battala Pasha - in the northeast, in the region of Samsun and Trabzon (Trebizond). These feudal lords had their own troops, distributed land grants, and collected taxes. The Sultan's officials did not dare to interfere in their actions.
Pashas, appointed by the Sultan himself, also showed separatist tendencies. The government tried to fight the separatism of the Pasha by moving them frequently, two to three times a year, from one province to another. But if the order was carried out, then the result was only a sharp increase in extortions from the population, since the pasha sought to reimburse his expenses for the purchase of a position, for bribes and for moving in a shorter time. However, over time, this method also ceased to give results, since the pashas began to start their own mercenary armies.
Decline of culture
Turkish culture, which reached its peak in the XV-XVI centuries, already from the end of the XVI century. gradually tends to decline. The poets' pursuit of excessive sophistication and pretentiousness of form leads to the impoverishment of the content of the works. The technique of versification, play on words begin to be valued higher than the thought and feeling expressed in verse. One of the last representatives of the degenerating palace poetry was Ahmed Nedim (1681-1730), a talented and bright exponent of the "tulip era". Nedim's work was limited to a narrow circle of palace themes - the glorification of the Sultan, court feasts, amusement walks, "conversations over halva" in the Saadabad palace and kyoshkas of aristocrats, but his works were distinguished by great expressiveness, spontaneity, and comparative simplicity of language. In addition to the divan (a collection of poems), Nedim left behind a Turkish translation of the collection Pages of News (Sahaif-ul-akhbar), better known as the History of the Chief Astrologer (Munedjim-bashi tarikhi).
The didactic literature of Turkey of this period is represented primarily by the work of Yusuf Nabi (d. 1712), the author of the moralistic poem "Hayriye", which in some of its parts contained a sharp criticism of modern mores. The symbolic poem of Sheikh Talib (1757-1798) "Beauty and Love" ("Husn-yu Ashk") also occupied a prominent place in Turkish literature.
Turkish historiography continued to develop in the form of court historical chronicles. Naima, Mehmed Reshid, Chelebi-zade Asym, Ahmed Resmi and other court historiographers, following a long-standing tradition, described in an apologetic spirit the life and activities of the sultans, military campaigns, etc. border (sefaret-name). Along with some correct observations, there was much that was naive and simply fictitious in them.
In 1727, the first printing house in Turkey was opened in Istanbul. Its founder was Ibrahim Agha Müteferrika (1674-1744), a native of a poor Hungarian family, who was captured by the Turks as a boy, then converted to Islam and remained in Turkey. Among the first books printed in the printing house were the Arabic-Turkish dictionary of Vankuli, the historical works of Kyatib Chelebi (Haji Khalifa), Omer effendi. After the death of Ibrahim Agha, the printing house was inactive for almost 40 years. In 1784 she resumed her work, but even then she published a very limited number of books. The printing of the Qur'an was prohibited. Secular works were also copied for the most part by hand.
The development of science, literature and art in Turkey was especially hampered by the dominance of Muslim scholasticism. The higher clergy did not allow secular education. Mullahs and numerous dervish orders entangled the people with a thick web of superstitions and prejudices. Signs of stagnation were found in all areas of Turkish culture. Attempts to revive old cultural traditions were doomed to failure, the development of new ones coming from the West was reduced to blind borrowing. This was the case, for example, with architecture, which followed the path of imitation of Europe. French decorators introduced distorted Baroque in Istanbul, and Turkish builders mixed all styles and erected ugly buildings. Nothing remarkable was created in painting, where the strict proportions of the geometric ornament were violated, now replaced, under the influence of European fashion, by a floral ornament with a predominance of the image of tulips.
But if the culture of the ruling class experienced a period of decline and stagnation, folk art continued to develop steadily. People's poets and singers enjoyed great love of the masses, reflecting in their songs and verses the freedom-loving dreams and aspirations of the people, hatred of the oppressors. Popular storytellers (hikyajiler or meddakhi), as well as the folk theater of shadows "karagez", whose performances were distinguished by acute topicality, were gaining wide popularity and covered the events taking place in the country from the point of view of the common people, according to their understanding and interests.
2. Balkan peoples under Turkish rule
The situation of the Balkan peoples in the second half of the 17th and 18th centuries.
The decline of the Ottoman Empire, the disintegration of the military-fief system, the weakening of the power of the Sultan's government - all this had a heavy impact on the lives of the South Slavic peoples under Turkish rule, Greeks, Albanians, Moldavians and Vlachs. The education of chiftliks, the desire of Turkish feudal lords to increase the profitability of their lands increasingly worsened the position of the peasantry. The distribution in the mountainous and forested regions of the Balkans for private ownership of lands that had previously belonged to the state led to the enslavement of the communal peasantry. The power of the landowners over the peasants expanded, and more severe forms of feudal dependence were established than before. Starting their own farm and not being content with natural and monetary extortions, the spakhii (sipakhi) forced the peasants to perform corvee. Great distribution received the transfer of spahiluk (Turkish - sipahilik, the possession of the sipahi) at the mercy of the usurers, who mercilessly robbed the peasants. Arbitrariness, bribery and arbitrariness of local authorities, judges-kadis, tax collectors grew as the central government weakened. The Janissary troops turned into one of the main sources of rebellion and turmoil in the European possessions of Turkey. The robbery of the civilian population by the Turkish army and especially by the janissaries has become a system.
In the Danube principalities in the 17th century. the process of consolidation of boyar farms and the seizure of peasant lands continued, accompanied by an increase in the serfdom of the bulk of the peasantry; only a few well-to-do peasants had the opportunity to obtain personal freedom for a large monetary ransom.
The growing hatred of Turkish rule on the part of the Balkan peoples and the desire of the Turkish government to squeeze more taxes prompted the latter to be carried out in the 17th century. the policy of complete subordination to the Turkish authorities and feudal lords of a number of mountainous regions and outskirts of the empire, previously ruled by local Christian authorities. In particular, the rights of rural and urban communities in Greece and Serbia, which enjoyed considerable independence, have been steadily curtailed. The pressure of the Turkish authorities on the Montenegrin tribes intensified in order to force them to complete obedience and to regular payment of kharach (kharaj). The Danube principalities Porta sought to turn into ordinary pashalyks, ruled by Turkish officials. The resistance of the strong Moldavian and Wallachian boyars did not allow this measure to be carried out, however, interference in the internal affairs of Moldova and Wallachia and the fiscal exploitation of the principalities increased significantly. Using the constant struggle of the boyar groups in the principalities, the Porta appointed her henchmen as Moldavian and Wallachian rulers, dismissing them every two to three years. At the beginning of the 18th century, fearing the rapprochement of the Danube principalities with Russia, the Turkish government began to appoint Istanbul Greek Phanariots as rulers ( Phanar - a quarter in Istanbul where the Greek patriarch resided; Phanariots - rich and noble Greeks, from whose midst came the highest representatives church hierarchy and officials of the Turkish administration; Phanariots were also engaged in large trade and usurious operations.), closely associated with the Turkish feudal class and the ruling circles.
Aggravation of contradictions within the empire and the growth in it social struggle led to the growth of religious antagonism between Muslims and Christians. The manifestations of Muslim religious fanaticism and the discriminatory policy of the Port in relation to Christian subjects intensified, and attempts to forcibly convert Bulgarian villages and entire Montenegrin and Albanian tribes to Islam became more frequent.
The Orthodox clergy of Serbs, Montenegrins and Bulgarians, who enjoyed great political influence among their peoples, often actively participated in anti-Turkish movements. Therefore, Porta was extremely distrustful of the South Slavic clergy, sought to belittle their political role, to prevent their ties with Russia and other Christian states. But the Phanariot clergy enjoyed the support of the Turks. Porta connived with the Hellenization of the South Slavic peoples, Moldavians and Vlachs, which the Greek hierarchy and the Phanariots who stood behind it tried to carry out. The Patriarchate of Constantinople appointed only Greeks to the highest church positions, who burned Church Slavonic books, did not allow church services in a language other than Greek, etc. Hellenization was especially active in Bulgaria and the Danube principalities, but it met with strong resistance from the masses ...
In Serbia in the 18th century. the highest ecclesiastical positions were also seized by the Greeks, which led to a rapid breakdown of the entire ecclesiastical organization, which had previously played an important role in maintaining national identity and folk traditions. In 1766, the Patriarchate of Constantinople obtained from the Porta the issuance of firmans (Sultan decrees), which subordinated the autocephalous Pec patriarchate and the Ohrid archbishopric to the authority of the Greek patriarch.
The medieval backwardness of the Ottoman Empire, the economic disunity of the regions, the brutal national and political oppression hampered the economic progress of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula enslaved by Turkey. But, despite the unfavorable conditions, in a number of areas of the European part of Turkey in the XVII-XVIII centuries. there were noticeable shifts in the economy. The development of productive forces and commodity-money relations, however, proceeded unevenly: first of all, it was found in some coastal regions, in areas located along the course of large rivers and on international trade routes. So, in the coastal parts of Greece and on the islands, the shipbuilding industry has grown. In Bulgaria, textile crafts developed significantly, serving the needs of the Turkish army and the urban population. Enterprises for the processing of agricultural raw materials, textile, paper and glass factories based on serf labor arose in the Danube principalities.
The growth of new cities in some areas of European Turkey was characteristic of this period. So, for example, in the foothills of the Balkans, in Bulgaria, in areas remote from the Turkish centers, a number of trade and craft Bulgarian settlements arose that served the local market (Kotel, Sliven, Gabrovo, etc.).
The internal market in the Balkan possessions of Turkey was poorly developed, the economy of the regions remote from large urban centers and trade routes was still mostly natural, but the growth of trade gradually destroyed their isolation. Foreign and transit trade, which was in the hands of foreign merchants, has long been of paramount importance in the economy of the countries of the Balkan Peninsula. However, in the 17th century. in connection with the decline of Dubrovnik and the Italian cities, local merchants began to occupy a stronger position in trade. The Greek commercial and usurious bourgeoisie acquired especially great economic strength in Turkey, subjugating the weaker South Slavic merchants to its influence.
The development of trade and trade and usurious capital, with the general backwardness of social relations among the Balkan peoples, has not yet created the conditions for the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. But the further, the more obvious it became that the economy of the Balkan peoples, who were under the yoke of Turkey, was developing in an independent way; that they, living in the most unfavorable conditions, nevertheless outstrip in their social development the nationality dominating in the state. All this made the struggle of the Balkan peoples for their national-political liberation inevitable.
Liberation struggle of the Balkan peoples against the Turkish yoke
During the XVII-XVIII centuries. v different parts On the Balkan Peninsula, uprisings against Turkish rule broke out more than once. These movements were usually local in nature, did not occur simultaneously, and were not sufficiently prepared. They were ruthlessly suppressed by Turkish troops. But time passed, failures were forgotten, hopes for liberation revived with renewed vigor, and with them new uprisings arose.
The main driving force in the uprisings was the peasantry. Often they were attended by and urban population, the clergy, even the Christian feudal lords who survived in some areas, and in Serbia and Montenegro - the local Christian authorities (knesos, governors and tribal leaders). In the Danube principalities, the struggle against Turkey was usually led by boyars, who hoped to free themselves from Turkish dependence with the help of neighboring states.
The liberation movement of the Balkan peoples took on a particularly wide scale during the war of the Holy League with Turkey. The successes of the Venetian and Austrian troops, joining the anti-Turkish coalition of Russia, with which the Balkan peoples were linked by the unity of religion - all this inspired the enslaved Balkan aarods to fight for their liberation. In the early years of the war, an uprising against the Turks began to be prepared in Wallachia. Lord Shcherban Cantacuzino conducted secret negotiations for an alliance with Austria. He even recruited an army hidden in the forests and mountains of Wallachia to move at the first signal from the Holy League. Cantacuzino intended to unite and lead the uprisings of other peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. But these plans were not destined to come true. The desire of the Habsburgs and the Polish king Jan Sobieski to seize the Danube principalities into their own hands forced the Wallachian ruler to abandon the idea of an uprising.
When in 1688 Austrian troops approached the Danube, and then took Belgrade and began to advance south, a strong anti-Turkish movement began in Serbia, Western Bulgaria, Macedonia. The local population joined the advancing Austrian troops, volunteer couples (partisan detachments) began to spontaneously form, which successfully waged independent military operations.
At the end of 1688, an uprising against the Turks arose in the center of ore mines in the northwestern part of Bulgaria - the city of Chiprovets. Its participants were the handicraft and commercial population of the city, as well as residents of the surrounding villages. The leaders of the movement hoped that the Austrians approaching Bulgaria would help them drive out the Turks. But the Austrian army did not come to the aid of the rebels. The Chiprovites were defeated, and the city of Chiprovets was wiped out.
The policy of the Habsburgs at that time had as its main goal the seizure of lands in the Danube basin, as well as the Adriatic coast. Not having sufficient military forces to carry out such broad plans, the emperor hoped to wage a war with Turkey with the forces of local rebels. Austrian emissaries called on the Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins to revolt, tried to win over the local Christian authorities (knesses and governors), tribal leaders, the baked patriarch Arseny Chernoevich.
The Habsburgs tried to make Georgy Brankovic, a Serbian feudal lord who lived in Transylvania, as an instrument of this policy. Brankovic posed as a descendant of Serbian sovereigns and cherished a plan for the revival of an independent state, including all the South Slavic lands. Brankovic presented the project of creating such a state under the Austrian protectorate to the emperor. This project did not correspond to the interests of the Habsburgs, and it was not real. Nevertheless, the Austrian court brought Brankovic closer to itself, granting him, as a descendant of Serbian despots, the title of count. In 1688, Georgy Brankovich was sent to the Austrian command to prepare the action of the population of Serbia against the Turks. However, Brankovic left the control of the Austrians and tried to organize the Serb uprising on his own. Then the Austrians arrested him and kept him in prison until his death.
Hopes for liberation with the help of the Habsburgs ended in grievous disappointment for the southern Slavs. After a successful raid into the interior of Serbia and Macedonia, carried out mainly by the forces of the Serbian volunteer army with the assistance of the local population and Haiduk, the Austrians at the end of 1689 began to suffer defeat from the Turkish troops. Fleeing from the revenge of the Turks, who destroyed everything in their path, the local population followed the retreating Austrian troops. This "great migration" took on a massive scale. From Serbia at this time, mainly from its southern and southwestern regions, about 60-70 thousand people fled to the Austrian possessions. In the following years of the war, Serbian volunteer detachments, under the command of their sub-leaders, fought against the Turks as part of the Austrian troops.
During the war of the Venetians against the Turks in the mid-80s and early 90s of the 17th century. a strong anti-Turkish movement arose among the Montenegrin and Albanian tribes. This movement was strongly encouraged by Venice, which concentrated all its military forces in Morea, and in Dalmatia and Montenegro hoped to wage war with the help of the local population. Shkodra Pasha Suleiman Bushatli repeatedly undertook punitive expeditions against the Montenegrin tribes. In 1685 and 1692. Turkish troops twice seized the residence of the Montenegrin metropolitans of Cetinje. But the Turks were never able to maintain their position in this small mountainous area, which fought a stubborn struggle for complete independence from the Porte.
The specific conditions in which Montenegro found itself after the Turkish conquest, the domination of backward social relations and patriarchal remnants in it contributed to the growth of the political influence of local metropolitans, who led the struggle for national-political liberation and unification of the Montenegrin tribes. The period of the reign of the talented statesman Metropolitan Danila Petrovich Njegosh (1697-1735). Danila Petrovic stubbornly fought for the complete liberation of Montenegro from the power of the Port, which did not abandon attempts to restore its positions in this strategically important area. In order to undermine the influence of the Turks, he exterminated or expelled from the country all Montenegrins who converted to Islam (Turchens). Danila also carried out some reforms that contributed to the centralization of government and the weakening of tribal enmity.
From the end of the 17th century. the political and cultural ties of the South Slavs, Greeks, Moldavians and Vlachs with Russia are expanding and strengthening. The tsarist government sought to expand its political influence among the peoples subject to Turkey, which in the future could become an important factor in deciding the fate of the Turkish possessions in Europe. From the end of the 17th century. the Balkan peoples began to attract more and more attention of Russian diplomacy. The oppressed peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, for their part, have long seen their co-religionist Russia as their patroness and hoped that the victories of Russian arms would bring them liberation from the Turkish yoke. Russia's entry into the Holy League prompted the representatives of the Balkan peoples to establish direct contact with the Russians. In 1688, the Wallachian ruler Shcherban Cantakuzino, the former Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius and the Serbian patriarch Arseny Chernoevich sent letters to the Russian tsars Ivan and Peter, in which they described the suffering of the Orthodox peoples in Turkey and asked Russia to send its troops to the Balkans to liberate the Christian peoples. Although the operations of the Russian troops in the war of 1686-1699. developed far from the Balkans, which did not allow the Russians to establish direct contacts with the Balkan peoples, the tsarist government already at this time began to put forward as the reason for the war with Turkey its desire to free the Balkan peoples from its yoke and acts in the international arena as a defender of the interests of all Orthodox in general subjects Ports. The Russian autocracy adhered to this position during the entire subsequent struggle with Turkey in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Setting as his goal to achieve Russia's access to the Black Sea, Peter I counted on help from the Balkan peoples. In 1709, he entered into a secret alliance with the Wallachian ruler Konstantin Brankovan, who promised in case of war to go over to the side of Russia, deploy a detachment of 30 thousand people, and also supply the Russian troops with food. The Moldovan ruler Dimitri Cantemir also pledged to provide military assistance to Peter and concluded an agreement with him on the transfer of Moldovans to Russian citizenship, provided that Moldova would be granted full internal independence. In addition, the Austrian Serbs promised their assistance, a large detachment of which was to join up with the Russian troops. Beginning in 1711 the Prut campaign, the Russian government issued a letter calling to arms all the peoples enslaved by Turkey. But the failure of the Prut campaign stopped the anti-Turkish movement of the Balkan peoples at the very beginning. Only the Montenegrins and the Herzegovites, having received a letter from Peter I, began to undertake military sabotage against the Turks. This circumstance was the beginning of the establishment of close ties between Russia and Montenegro. Metropolitan Danila visited Russia in 1715, after which Peter I established the periodic issuance of monetary benefits to Montenegrins.
As a result of a new war between Turkey and Austria in 1716-1718, in which the population of Serbia also fought on the side of the Austrians, Banat, the northern part of Serbia and Little Wallachia came under the rule of the Habsburgs. However, the population of these lands, freed from the power of the Turks, fell into an equally heavy dependence on the Austrians. Taxes have been increased. The Austrians forced their new subjects to accept Catholicism or Uniatism, and the Orthodox population suffered severe religious oppression. All this caused great discontent and the flight of many Serbs and Vlachs to Russia or even to Turkish possessions. At the same time, the Austrian occupation of Northern Serbia contributed to some development of commodity-money relations in this area, which subsequently led to the formation of a layer of the rural bourgeoisie.
The next war between Turkey and Austria, which the latter waged in alliance with Russia, ended with the loss of Lesser Wallachia and Northern Serbia by the Habsburgs in the Belgrade Peace of 1739, but the Serbian lands remained in the Austrian monarchy - Banat, Backa, Baranja, Srem. During this war, an uprising against the Turks broke out again in Southwestern Serbia, which, however, did not take on a wider character and was quickly suppressed. This unsuccessful war halted Austrian expansion in the Balkans and led to a further decline in the political influence of the Habsburgs among the Balkan peoples.
From the middle of the 18th century. the leading role in the struggle against Turkey passed to Russia. In 1768, Catherine II entered the war with Turkey and, following Peter's policy, appealed to the Balkan peoples to rise up against Turkish rule. The successful military actions of Russia stirred up the Balkan peoples. The appearance of the Russian fleet off the coast of Greece in 1770 caused an uprising in Morea and on the islands of the Aegean Sea. At the expense of Greek merchants, a fleet was created, which, under the leadership of Lambros Katzonis, at one time waged a successful war with the Turks at sea.
Croatian warrior on the Austro-Turkish border ("Granichar"). Drawing from the middle of the 18th century.
The entry of Russian troops into Moldavia and Wallachia was enthusiastically received by the population. From Bucharest and Yass, delegations of boyars and clergy went to St. Petersburg, asking to accept the principalities under Russian protection.
The Kuchuk-Kainardzhiyskiy peace of 1774 was of great importance for the Balkan peoples. A number of articles of this treaty were devoted to the Christian peoples subject to Turkey and gave Russia the right to protect their interests. The return of the Danube principalities to Turkey was subject to a number of conditions aimed at improving the situation of their population. Objectively, these articles of the treaty made it easier for the Balkan peoples to fight for their liberation. The further policy of Catherine II in the Eastern question, regardless of the predatory goals of tsarism, also contributed to the revitalization of the national liberation movement of the Balkan peoples and the further expansion of their political and cultural ties with Russia.
The beginning of the national revival of the Balkan peoples
Several centuries of Turkish rule did not lead to the denationalization of the Balkan peoples. South Slavs, Greeks, Albanians, Moldavians and Vlachs have preserved their national languages, culture, folk traditions; in the conditions of a foreign yoke, elements of economic community, although slowly, steadily developed.
The first signs of the national revival of the Balkan peoples appeared in the 18th century. They were expressed in the cultural and educational movement, in the revival of interest in their historical past, in the intensified desire to raise public education, improve the system of education in schools, and introduce elements of secular education. The cultural and educational movement began first among the Greeks, the most socially and economically developed people, and then among the Serbs and Bulgarians, Moldavians and Vlachs.
The educational movement had its own characteristics for each Balkan people and did not develop at the same time. But its social base in all cases was the national trade and craft class.
The difficult conditions for the formation of a national bourgeoisie among the Balkan peoples determined the complexity and contradictory nature of the content of national movements. In Greece, for example, where the trading and usurious capital was the strongest and closely connected with the entire Turkish regime and with the activities of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the beginning of the national movement was accompanied by the emergence of great-power ideas, plans for the revival of the great Greek Empire on the ruins of Turkey and the subordination of the rest of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula to the Greeks. These ideas found practical expression in the Hellenistic efforts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Phanariots. At the same time, the ideology of the Greek enlighteners, the development of the Greeks public education, school affairs had a positive impact on other Balkan peoples and accelerated the emergence of similar movements among the Serbs and Bulgarians.
At the head of the educational movement of the Greeks in the XVIII century. there were scientists, writers and educators Eugenos Voulgaris (died in 1806) and Nikiforos Theotokis (died in 1800), and later an outstanding public figure, scientist and publicist Adamantios Korais (1748-1833). His works, imbued with love of freedom and patriotism, inspired compatriots with love for their homeland, freedom, for the Greek language, in which Korais saw the first and most important instrument of national revival.
Among the southern Slavs, the national educational movement first of all began in the Serbian lands subject to the Habsburgs. With the active support of the Serbian trade and craft class that had grown stronger here in the second quarter of the 18th century. in Banat, Bačka, Baranje, Srem, schooling, Serbian writing, secular literature, and printing began to develop.
The development of education among the Austrian Serbs at this time took place under a strong Russian influence. At the request of the Serbian Metropolitan, in 1726, the Russian teacher Maxim Suvorov arrived in Karlovitsy to organize the school business. Emanuil Kozachinsky, a native of Kiev, was at the head of the "Latin School" founded in 1733 in Karlovichi. Many Russians and Ukrainians taught in other Serbian schools. Serbs also received books and textbooks from Russia. The consequence of the Russian cultural influence on the Austrian Serbs was the transition from the Serbian Church Slavonic language previously used in writing to the Russian Church Slavonic language.
The main representative of this trend was the outstanding Serbian writer and historian Iovan Rajic (1726 - 1801). The activities of another famous Serbian writer Zakhariy Orfelin (1726 - 1785), who wrote the major work "The Life and Glorious Deeds of Emperor Peter the Great", also developed under strong Russian influence. The cultural and educational movement among the Austrian Serbs received a new impetus in the second half of the 18th century, when the outstanding writer, scientist and philosopher Dosifej Obradovich (1742-1811) began his career. Obradovic was a supporter of enlightened absolutism. His ideology was formed to a certain extent under the influence of the philosophy of European enlighteners. At the same time, it had a purely national basis. Obradovic's views subsequently gained wide recognition among the trade and craft class and the emerging bourgeois intelligentsia, not only among the Serbs, but also among the Bulgarians.
In 1762, the monk Paisiy of Hilendarsky (1722-1798) completed the "Slavic-Bulgarian History" - a journalistic treatise based on historical data, directed primarily against the Greek dominance and the threatening denationalization of the Bulgarians. Paisiy called for the revival of the Bulgarian language and social thought. A talented follower of the ideas of Paisius of Hilendarsky was Bishop Sofroniy (Stoyko Vladislavov) of Vratsan (1739-1814).
The outstanding Moldovan educator Gospodar Dimitri Cantemir (1673 - 1723) wrote the satirical novel "Hieroglyphic History", the philosophical and didactic poem "The Dispute of the Sage with the Heaven or the Litigation of the Soul with the Body" and a number of historical works. The development of the culture of the Moldovan people was also greatly influenced by the prominent historian and linguist Enakits Vekerescu (c. 1740 - c. 1800).
The national revival of the Balkan peoples took on a broader scope at the beginning of the next century.
3. Arab countries under Turkish rule
The decline of the Ottoman Empire was reflected in the position of the Arab countries that were part of it. During the period under review, the power of the Turkish Sultan in North Africa, including Egypt, was largely nominal. In Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, it was sharply weakened by popular uprisings and rebellions of local feudal lords. In Arabia, a broad religious and political movement arose - Wahhabism, which set itself the goal of completely ousting the Turks from the Arabian Peninsula.
Egypt
In the XVII-XVIII centuries. in the economic development of Egypt, there are some new phenomena. The peasant economy is more and more drawn into market relations. In some areas, especially in the Nile Delta, the rent-tax takes the form of money. Foreign travelers at the end of the 18th century describe the brisk trade in the urban markets of Egypt, where the peasants delivered grain, vegetables, livestock, wool, cheese, butter, homemade yarn and bought fabrics, clothes, utensils, metal products in exchange. Trade was also carried out directly in the village markets. Trade relations between different regions of the country have developed significantly. According to contemporaries, in the middle of the 18th century. from the southern regions of Egypt down the Nile, to Cairo and to the delta region, ships sailed with grain, sugar, beans, linen and linseed oil; in the opposite direction there were loads of cloth, soap, rice, iron, copper, lead, salt.
Foreign trade ties have also grown significantly. In the XVII-XVIII centuries. Egypt exported to European countries cotton and linen fabrics, leather, sugar, ammonia, as well as rice and wheat. Lively trade was conducted with neighboring countries - Syria, Arabia, Maghreb (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco), Sudan, Darfur. A significant part of the transit trade with India passed through Egypt. At the end of the 18th century. in Cairo alone, 5 thousand merchants were engaged in foreign trade.
In the XVIII century. in a number of industries, especially in industries working for export, the transition to manufacturing began. In Cairo, Mahalla Kubra, Rosetta, Kusa, Kina and in other cities, manufactories were founded that produced silk, cotton and linen fabrics. Each of these manufactories employed hundreds of hired workers; the largest of them, Mahalla Kubra, employed 800 to 1000 people permanently. Hired labor was used in oil mills, sugar and other factories. Sometimes feudal lords, in company with sugar refiners, founded enterprises on their estates. Often the owners of manufactories, large craft workshops and shops were representatives of the higher clergy, rulers of waqfs.
The production technique was still primitive, but the division of labor within manufactories contributed to an increase in its productivity and a significant increase in production.
By the end of the 18th century. in Cairo, there were 15 thousand hired workers and 25 thousand artisans. Hired labor began to be used in agriculture: thousands of peasants were hired to field work in the neighboring large estates.
However, under the conditions then existing in Egypt, the sprouts of capitalist relations could not receive significant development. As in the rest of the Ottoman Empire, the property of merchants, owners of manufactures and workshops was not protected from encroachments by pashas and beys. Excessive taxes, levies, indemnities, extortion ruined merchants and artisans. The capitulation regime pushed local merchants out of the more lucrative branches of trade, ensuring the monopoly of European merchants and their agents. In addition, as a result of the systematic robbery of the peasantry, the domestic market was extremely unstable and narrow.
Along with the development of trade, the feudal exploitation of the peasantry grew steadily. New duties were constantly added to the old duties. The multazims (landlords) collected taxes from the fellahs (peasants) to pay tribute to Porte, taxes on the upkeep of the army, provincial authorities, village administrations and religious institutions, extortions for their own needs, as well as many other extortions, sometimes levied without any reason. A list of taxes collected from peasants in one of the Egyptian villages, published by a French researcher of the 18th century. Esteve, contained over 70 titles. In addition to the taxes established by law, all sorts of additional levies based on custom were widely used. "It is enough that the amount was collected 2-3 years in a row," Esteve wrote, "so that it would then be demanded on the basis of customary law."
Feudal oppression increasingly provoked uprisings against the Mamluk domination. In the middle of the 18th century. The Mamluk feudal lords were expelled from Upper Egypt by the Bedouins, whose revolt was suppressed only by 1769. Soon a great uprising of the fellahs broke out in the Tanta district (1778), also suppressed by the Mamluks.
The Mamluks still firmly held power in their hands. Although formally they were vassals of the Port, the power of the Turkish pashas sent from Istanbul was illusory. In 1769, during the Russian-Turkish war, the Mamluk ruler Ali-bei proclaimed the independence of Egypt. Having received some support from the commander of the Russian fleet in the Aegean Sea A. Orlov, he at first successfully resisted the Turkish troops, but then the uprising was suppressed, and he himself was killed. Nevertheless, the power of the Mamluk feudal lords did not weaken; the place of the deceased Ali-bey was taken by the leaders of another Mamluk group hostile to him. Only at the beginning of the 19th century. the power of the Mamluks was overthrown.
Syria and Lebanon
Sources of the 17th-18th centuries contain scant information about the economic development of Syria and Lebanon. There is no data on domestic trade, on manufactories, on the use of hired labor. More or less accurate information is available about the growth of foreign trade during the period under review, the emergence of new trade and craft centers, and the strengthening of the specialization of regions. There is also no doubt that in Syria and Lebanon, as in Egypt, the size of feudal exploitation increased, the struggle within the class of feudal lords intensified, and the liberation struggle of the masses against foreign oppression grew.
In the second half of the 17th and early 18th centuries. of great importance was the struggle between two groups of Arab feudal lords - the Qaysites (or "reds" as they called themselves) and the Yemenites (or "whites"). The first of these groups, led by the Ma'an emirs, opposed Turkish rule and therefore enjoyed the support of the Lebanese peasants; that was her strength. The second group, led by emirs from the Alam ad-din clan, served the Turkish authorities and, with their help, fought against their rivals.
After the suppression of the uprising of Fakhr-ad-din II and his execution (1635), Porta handed the sultan's firman to govern Lebanon to the leader of the Yemenites, Emir Alam-ad-din, but soon the Turkish protege was overthrown by a new popular uprising. The rebels elected Fakhr-ad-din II's nephew, Emir Mel-Khem Maan, as ruler of Lebanon, and Porta was forced to approve this choice. However, she did not give up her attempts to remove the Qaysites from power and put her supporters at the head of the Lebanese principality.
In 1660, the troops of the Damascus Pasha, Ahmed Köprülü (the son of the great vizier), invaded Lebanon. According to the Arab chronicle, the pretext for this military expedition was the fact that the vassals and allies of the Maans - the emirs of Shihab "incited the Damascans against the Pasha." Acting together with the Yemenite militias, Turkish troops occupied and burned a number of mountain villages in Lebanon, including the capital of Maan - Dayr al-Qamar and the Shikhab residences - Rasheyu (Rashayu) and Hasbeyu (Hasbayu). The Qaisite emirs were forced to retreat with their squads to the mountains. But popular support in the end ensured them victory over the Turks and Yemenites. In 1667, the Kaysite group returned to power.
In 1671, a new clash between the Qaysites and the troops of the Damascus Pasha led to the occupation and plundering of Rashaya by the Turks. But in the end, the victory again remained with the Lebanese. Also unsuccessful were other attempts by the Turkish authorities to put emirs from the Alam-ad-din clan at the head of Lebanon, undertaken in the last quarter of the 17th century.
In 1710, the Turks, together with the Yemenites, again attacked Lebanon. Having overthrown the Kaisite emir Khaidar from the Shihab clan (to this clan the emir's throne passed in 1697, after the death of the last emir from the Maan clan), they turned Lebanon into an ordinary Turkish pashalyk. However, already in the next 1711, in the battle of Ain Dar, the troops of the Turks and Yemenites were defeated by the Qaysites. Most of the Yemenites, including the entire clan of the emirs Alyam ad-din, died in this battle. The victory of the Qaysites was so impressive that the Turkish authorities had to abandon the arrangement of the Lebanese pashalyk; for a long time they refrained from interfering in the internal affairs of Lebanon.
The Lebanese peasants won the victory at Ain Dar, but this did not lead to an improvement in their situation. Emir Haydar limited himself to taking the inheritance (mukataa) from the Yemenite feudal lords and distributing them among his supporters.
From the middle of the 18th century. The feudal principality of Safad in Northern Palestine became the center of the struggle against Turkish power. Its ruler, the son of one of the Qaysites, Sheikh Dagir, gradually rounding off the possessions received by his father from the Lebanese emir, and extended his power to all of Northern Palestine and a number of regions of Lebanon. Around 1750, he acquired a small seaside village - Akku. According to the testimony of the Russian officer Pleshcheev, who visited Akku in 1772, by this time it had become a major center of maritime trade and handicraft production. Many merchants and artisans from Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus and other parts of the Ottoman Empire settled in Akka. Although Dagir imposed significant taxes on them and applied the system of monopolies and ransoms that was common in the Ottoman Empire, the conditions for the development of trade and crafts were apparently somewhat better here than in other cities: feudal levies were strictly fixed, and the life and property of a merchant and artisan were protected from arbitrariness. In Akka, there were the ruins of a fortress built by the crusaders. Dagir restored this fortress, created his own army and navy.
The de facto independence and growing wealth of the new Arab principality aroused the discontent and greed of the neighboring Turkish authorities. From 1765 Dagir had to defend himself against three Turkish pashas - Damascus, Tripoli and Saida. At first, the struggle was reduced to episodic clashes, but in 1769, after the start of the Russian-Turkish war, Dagir headed the Arab popular uprising against Turkish oppression. He entered into an alliance with the Mamluk ruler of Egypt, Ali Bey. The allies took Damascus, Beirut, Saida (Sidon), laid siege to Jaffa. Russia provided significant assistance to the insurgent Arabs. Russian warships cruised along the Lebanese coast, shelled Beirut during the assault on its fortress by the Arabs, and delivered guns, shells and other weapons to the Arab rebels.
In 1775, a year after the end of the Russian-Turkish war, Dagir was besieged in Akka and soon killed, and his principality disintegrated. Akka became the seat of the Turkish Pasha Ahmed, nicknamed Jazzar ("The Butcher"). But the struggle of the masses of Syria and Lebanon against Turkish oppression continued.
During the last quarter of the XVIII century. Jazzar continuously increased the tribute from the Arab regions subject to him. Thus, the tribute collected from Lebanon increased from 150 thousand piastres in 1776 to 600 thousand piastres in 1790. To pay it, a number of new, previously unknown to Lebanon, levies were introduced - a poll tax, taxes on sericulture, on mills etc. The Turkish authorities again began to openly interfere in the internal affairs of Lebanon, their troops, sent to collect tribute, plundered and burned villages, exterminated the inhabitants. All this caused continuous uprisings that weakened Turkey's power over the Arab lands.
Iraq
In terms of economic development, Iraq lagged behind Egypt and Syria. Of the previously numerous cities in Iraq, only Baghdad and Basra retained, to a certain extent, the importance of large handicraft centers; here woolen fabrics, carpets, and leather goods were made. But through the country there was transit trade between Europe and Asia, which brought significant income, and this circumstance, as well as the struggle for the sacred Shiite cities of Karbala and Najef located in Iraq, made Iraq an object of an acute Turkish-Iranian struggle. Transit trade attracted English merchants to the country, who in the 17th century. founded the trading post of the East India Company in Basra, and in the 18th century. - in Baghdad.
The Turkish conquerors divided Iraq into two pashalyks (eylets): Mosul and Baghdad. In Mosul Pashalyk, inhabited mainly by Kurds, there was a military-fief system. The Kurds - both nomads and sedentary farmers - still retain the features of the tribal life, the division into ashirets (clans). But their communal lands and most of their livestock have long become the property of the leaders, and the leaders themselves - khans, beks and sheikhs - turned into feudal lords who enslaved their fellow tribesmen.
However, Porta's power over the Kurdish feudal lords was very fragile, which was explained by the crisis of the military-fief system that was observed in the 17th-18th centuries. throughout the Ottoman Empire. Using the Turkish-Iranian rivalry, Kurdish feudal lords often evaded their military duties, and sometimes openly sided with the Iranian shah against the Turkish sultan or maneuvered between the sultan and the shah in order to achieve greater independence. In turn, the Turkish pashas, seeking to consolidate their power, incited enmity between the Kurds and their Arab neighbors and Christian minorities and encouraged strife among the Kurdish feudal lords.
In Baghdad Pashalyk, inhabited by Arabs, in 1651 a tribal uprising broke out, led by the feudal clan Siyyab. It led to the expulsion of the Turks from the Basra region. Only in 1669, after repeated military expeditions, did the Turks manage to re-establish their Pasha in Basra. But already in 1690 the Arab tribes settled in the Euphrates valley, united in the Muntafik union, rebelled. The rebels occupied Basra and fought a successful war against the Turks for a number of years.
Appointed at the beginning of the 18th century. the ruler of Baghdad, Hasan Pasha, fought for 20 years with the Arab agricultural and Bedouin tribes of southern Iraq. He concentrated in his hands power over all of Iraq, including Kurdistan, and secured it for his "dynasty": throughout the 18th century. the country was ruled by pashas from among his descendants or his Kuelemen ( Kyulemen is a white slave (usually of Caucasian origin), a soldier of a mercenary army made up of slaves, the same as the Mamluk in Egypt.). Hasan Pasha created a government and a court in Baghdad according to the Istanbul model, acquired his own army, formed from the Janissaries and Kuelemen. He was related to the Arab sheikhs, gave them ranks and gifts, took land from some tribes and endowed them with others, incited enmity and civil strife. But even with these maneuvers, he failed to make his power lasting: it was weakened by the almost continuous uprisings of the Arab tribes, especially the Muntafiks, who most energetically defended their freedom.
A new large wave of popular uprisings broke out in southern Iraq at the end of the 16th century. due to the intensification of feudal exploitation and a sharp increase in the amount of tribute. The uprisings were suppressed by the Baghdad Pasha Suleiman, but they dealt a serious blow to Turkish rule in Iraq.
Arabia. The emergence of Wahhabism
On the Arabian Peninsula, the rule of the Turkish conquerors was never strong. In 1633, as a result of popular uprisings, the Turks were forced to leave Yemen, which became an independent feudal state. But they stubbornly adhered to the Hejaz: the Turkish sultans attached exceptional importance to their nominal domination over the holy cities of Islam - Mecca and Medina, which served as the basis for their claims to spiritual power over all "faithful" Muslims. In addition, during the hajj (Muslim pilgrimage) season, these cities turned into grandiose fairs, centers of lively trade, which brought significant income to the Sultan's treasury. Therefore, Porta not only did not impose tribute on the Hejaz, but, on the contrary, obliged the pasha of the neighboring Arab countries - Egypt and Syria - to annually send gifts to Mecca for the local spiritual nobility and give generous subsidies to the leaders of the Hejaz tribes, through whose territory the caravans of pilgrims passed. For the same reason, the real power within the Hejaz was left to the Meccan spiritual feudal lords - the sheriffs, who have long enjoyed influence over the townspeople and nomadic tribes. The Turkish Pasha of the Hijaz was essentially not the ruler of the country, but the representative of the Sultan to the sheriff.
In East Arabia in the 17th century, after the expulsion of the Portuguese from there, arose independent state in Oman. The Arab merchants of Oman possessed a significant fleet and, like European merchants, engaged in piracy along with the trade. At the end of the 17th century. they took away from the Portuguese the island of Zanzibar and the adjacent African coast, and at the beginning of the XVIII century. expelled the Iranians from the Bahrain Islands (later, in 1753, the Iranians regained Bahrain). In 1737, under Nadir Shah, the Iranians tried to seize Oman, but the popular uprising that broke out in 1741 ended with their expulsion. The leader of the uprising, the Muscat merchant Ahmed ibn Said, was proclaimed hereditary imam of Oman. Its capitals were Rastak, a fortress in the inner mountainous part of the country, and Muscat, a trade center on the seaside. During this period, Oman pursued an independent policy, successfully resisting the penetration of European merchants - the British and French, who were vainly trying to get permission to set up their trading posts in Muscat.
The coast of the Persian Gulf to the northwest of Oman was inhabited by independent Arab tribes - Javasim, Atban and others, who were engaged in marine industries, mainly pearl fishing, as well as trade and piracy. In the XVIII century. the atbans built a fortress of Kuwait, which became a significant shopping center and the capital of the principality of the same name. In 1783, one of the divisions of this tribe occupied the Bahrain Islands, which after that also became an independent Arab principality. Small principalities were founded, in addition, on the Qatar Peninsula and at various points on the so-called Pirate Coast (present-day Treaty Oman).
The inner part of the Arabian Peninsula - Nejd - was in the 17th-18th centuries. almost completely isolated from the outside world. Even the Arab chronicles of that time, compiled in neighboring countries, remain silent about the events that took place in Najd and, apparently, remained unknown to their authors. Meanwhile, it was in Najd that arose in the middle of the 18th century. a movement that subsequently played a major role in the history of the entire Arab East.
The real political goal of this movement was to unite the scattered small feudal principalities and independent tribes of Arabia into a single state. Constant strife between tribes over pastures, nomadic raids on the sedentary population of oases and merchant caravans, feudal strife were accompanied by the destruction of irrigation facilities, the destruction of gardens and groves, theft of herds, the ruin of peasants, merchants and a significant part of the Bedouins. Only the unification of Arabia could end these endless wars and ensure the rise of agriculture and trade.
The call for the unity of Arabia was clothed in the form of a religious doctrine, which was named Wahhabism after its founder Mohammed ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. This doctrine, wholly preserving the dogma of Islam, emphasized the principle of monotheism, severely condemned local and tribal cults of saints, remnants of fetishism, corruption of morals and demanded the return of Islam to its "original purity." To a large extent, it was directed against the "apostates from Islam" - the Turkish conquerors who seized the Hejaz, Syria, Iraq and other Arab countries.
Similar religious teachings have arisen among Muslims before. In Najd itself, Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab had predecessors. However, his activities went far beyond the scope of religious preaching. From the middle of the 18th century. Wahhabism was recognized as the official religion of the Dareyya principality, whose emirs Muhammad ibn Saud (1747-1765) and his son Abd al-Aziz (1765-1803), relying on the alliance of Wahhabite tribes, demanded from other tribes and principalities of Nejd under the threat of a "holy war ”And the death of accepting the Wahhabi faith and joining the Saudi state.
For 40 years there have been continuous wars in the country. The principalities and tribes, forcibly annexed by the Wahhabis, more than once raised uprisings and renounced the new faith, but these uprisings were severely suppressed.
The struggle for the unification of Arabia arose not only from the objective needs of economic development. The annexation of new territories increased the income and power of the Saudi dynasty, and the booty enriched the "fighters for a just cause," and the emir accounted for one-fifth of it.
By the end of the 80s of the XVIII century. the whole of Najd was united under the rule of the Wahhabi feudal nobility, headed by the emir Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud. However, the government in this state was not centralized. Power over individual tribes remained in the hands of the former feudal leaders, provided that they recognized themselves as vassals of the emir and received Wahhabi preachers.
Subsequently, the Wahhabis went outside the borders of Inner Arabia to spread their power and faith in other Arab countries. At the very end of the 18th century. they launched the first raids on the Hejaz and Iraq, opening the way for the further rise of the Wahhabi state.
Arab culture in the 17th-18th centuries
The Turkish conquest led to the decline of Arab culture, which continued during the 17th-18th centuries. Science during this period developed very weakly. Philosophers, historians, geographers, lawyers mainly expounded and rewrote the works of medieval authors. Medicine, astronomy, mathematics froze at the level of the Middle Ages. Experimental methods for studying nature were not known. Religious motives prevailed in poetry. Mystical dervish literature was widely disseminated.
In Western bourgeois historiography, the decline of Arab culture is usually attributed to the dominance of Islam. In reality the main reason decline was extremely slow pace of socio-economic development and Turkish oppression. As for Islamic dogma, which undoubtedly played a negative role, Christian dogmas professed in a number of Arab countries exerted no less reactionary influence. The religious disunity of the Arabs, divided into a number of faith groups - especially in Syria and Lebanon, led to cultural division. Every cultural movement inevitably took on a religious imprint. In the XVII century. a college for the Lebanese Arabs was founded in Rome, but it was entirely in the hands of the Maronite clergy (Maronites are Christian Arabs who recognize the spiritual authority of the pope) and its influence was limited to a narrow circle of the Maronite intelligentsia. The educational activity of the Maronite Bishop Herman Farhat, who founded at the beginning of the 18th century, was of the same religious character, limited by the framework of Maronite propaganda. the library in Aleppo (Aleppo); the same features were characteristic of the Maronite school established in the 18th century. at the monastery of Ain Barka (Lebanon), and an Arab printing house founded at this monastery. The main subject of study at the school was theology; the printing house printed exclusively books of religious content.
In the XVII century. Patriarch Macarius of Antioch and his son Pavel Aleppsky made a trip to Russia and Georgia. The descriptions of this trip, compiled by Pavel Aleppsky, can be compared in terms of the brightness of observations and the artistry of style with the best monuments of classical Arabic geographical literature. But these works were known only in a narrow circle of Orthodox Arabs, mainly among the clergy.
At the beginning of the 18th century. the first printing house in Istanbul was founded. In Arabic, she published only Muslim religious books - the Koran, hadiths, commentaries, etc. The cultural center of Muslim Arabs was still the theological university al-Azhar in Cairo.
However, even during this period, historical and geographical works appeared containing original material. In the XVII century. the historian al-Makkari wrote an interesting work on the history of Andalusia; the Damascus judge Ibn Khallikan compiled an extensive collection of biographies; in the 18th century. the Shihab Chronicle was written - the most important source on the history of Lebanon during this period. Other chronicles were created on the history of the Arab countries in the 17th-18th centuries, as well as descriptions of travels to Mecca, Istanbul and other places.
The centuries-old art of Arab folk craftsmen continued to manifest itself in remarkable architectural monuments and in art and handicrafts. This is evidenced by the Azma Palace in Damascus, built in the 18th century, the remarkable architectural ensembles of the Moroccan capital Meknes, erected at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, many monuments of Cairo, Tunisia, Tlemcen, Aleppo and other Arab cultural centers.
Strengthening the empire. At the beginning of the 16th century, the entire Ottoman Empire was divided into provinces, and the provinces into sanjaks. The provinces were ruled by get down(governors general), sanjaks - sandjakbei.
The empire had a military-fief system of land tenure. Military Lenniks - landowners who received large and small estates from the Sultan (zeamets and timara), they themselves formed and supplied the feudal army. The big landowners were called loans and beyi, owners of small lands - timariots and sipahis. The military-fief system freed the state from most of the cost of maintaining the army and ensured the rapid mobilization of troops. But there were also government troops - the Janissaries (Turkish infantry), and other military corps. All this provided the military might of the Ottoman Empire, allowing it to wage wars of conquest. From the textbook "World History" for the 7th grade, it is known that such wars contributed to the creation of a huge empire by the Turkish state. wars of conquest The Ottoman Empire did not stop. During this period, Iran was its main rival in Asia. In 1514, the Turkish Sultan Selim I defeated the army of the Iranian Shah Ismail Safavi. This victory opened the way for the conquest of Egypt. In 1516, Syria and Palestine were captured on the way to Egypt. In 1517, Cairo, the capital of Egypt, was taken.
The expansion of Turkey's borders allowed her to seize important trade routes and strategic positions, which contributed to the strengthening of the central power and military power of the empire. As a result, Turkey has taken a decisive place in the world and in the destinies of the countries of Europe, Asia and Africa.
Internal position. Turkey achieved incomparable power and military might not only thanks to the sultan's reasonable policy.
The merciless exploitation of the peasants forced them to flee en masse to the city or even outside the empire.
To prevent such cases, the Sultan was forced to issue a special decree - firman, giving the right to landowners to forcibly return the peasants back. According to this decree, even those who had lived for less than 15 years in the place where they fled and for less than 20 years if the fugitive lived in the city were subjected to forced return. This was very reminiscent of the serfdom that reigned in those days in Europe.
In 1519, exhausted by hard work and bondage, the peasants revolted, led by Sheikh Jalal. The uprising was brutally suppressed by Sultan Selim I. Since then, all the rebels in Turkey began to be called "Jalalists", and the uprisings themselves "Jalalism". The largest uprising took place in 1526 under the leadership of Kalandar. This uprising was also suppressed, albeit with difficulty. The ruin of the peasants and their flight led, in the middle of the 16th century, to the fall of agriculture in the country. And this turned into hunger.
To solve the acute problem, in 1610 the Sultan issued a decree "Firman of Justice", which provided for the return of the lands left by them during the famine to the peasants for a small fee. budget, the fiefs had to be divided into small parts and sold, which meant that those who previously formed and supplied the troops were no longer able to carry out their duties. This was the main reason for the beginning of the decline in Turkey's military power. Centralized states and a strong centralized power were established in Western Europe, and decline was indicated in the Ottoman Empire.
At the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries, Turkey no longer possessed the same offensive power.
The beginning of dependence on European powers. Starting from the middle of the 17th century, the internal situation in Turkey began to aggravate again. The state budget was systematically in deficit. The weakening of the Ottoman Empire could not be stopped.
To get out of the crisis, the Turkish government had to rely on the help of European states. These countries were given access to Turkish markets. The merchants of European countries were provided with great benefits. For example, for French merchants, the customs duty was only 3 percent. As a result, Turkish markets were overwhelmed with European goods, causing irreparable damage to local industries.
In foreign policy, Turkey began to draw closer to Britain and France. The Sultan envisaged their alliance with Turkey against Russia. The governments of England and France were also eager to seize the opportunity to their advantage. Hoping for their help, Turkey entered wars with Russia several times in the 18th century, however, they ended unsuccessfully for Turkey. These defeats were a demonstration of the complete decay of medieval relations that dominated the Ottoman Empire.
League - union, unification.
