History of the Ottoman Empire in chronological order.

The Turks are a relatively young people. Its age is only a little over 600 years. The first Turks were a bunch of Turkmens, fugitives from Central Asia who fled to the west from the Mongols. They reached the Konya Sultanate and asked for land to settle. They were given a place on the border with the Nicaean Empire near Bursa. The fugitives began to settle there in the middle of the 13th century.

The main one among the fugitive Turkmens was Ertogrul Bey. He called the territory allocated to him the Ottoman beylik. And taking into account the fact that the Konya Sultan lost all power, he became an independent ruler. Ertogrul died in 1281 and power passed to his son Osman I Ghazi. It is he who is considered the founder of the dynasty of Ottoman sultans 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 soldiers

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 Ghazi, like the crusaders, declared a holy war, but only for the Muslim faith. He began to invite everyone who wanted to take part in it. And from all over the Muslim east, seekers of fortune began to flock to Osman. They were ready to fight for the faith of Islam until their sabers became dull 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 be replenished with Circassians, Kurds, Arabs, Seljuks, and Turkmens. That is, anyone could come, recite the formula of Islam and become a Turk. And on the occupied lands, such people began to be allocated small plots of land for farming. This area was called “timar”. It was a house with a garden.

The owner of the timar became a horseman (spagi). His duty was to appear at the first call to the Sultan in full armor and on his own horse in order to serve in the cavalry army. It was noteworthy that the spahi did not pay taxes in the form of money, since they paid the tax with their blood.

With such 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. Bursa was just a stone's throw from Constantinople, 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 this, the gradual and steady capture of Thrace began.

In Europe it was impossible to get along 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(yang - new, charik - army: it turns out to be Janissaries).

The conquerors forcibly took boys between the ages of 7 and 14 from Christian peoples 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 best infantrymen in all of Europe. Neither the knightly cavalry nor the Persian Qizilbash could break through the Janissaries' line.

Janissaries - infantry of the Ottoman army

And the secret of the invincibility of the Turkish infantry lay in the spirit of military camaraderie. From the first days the Janissaries lived together, ate from the same cauldron delicious porridge, and, despite the fact that they belonged to different nations, they were people of the same destiny. When they became adults, they got married and started families, but continued to live in the barracks. Only during vacations did they visit their wives and children. That is why they did not know defeat and represented the faithful and reliable force of the Sultan.

However, having reached the Mediterranean Sea, the Ottoman Empire could not limit itself to just the Janissaries. Since there is water, ships are needed, and the need arose for a navy. The Turks began to recruit pirates, adventurers and vagabonds from all over the Mediterranean Sea for the fleet. Italians, Greeks, Berbers, Danes, and 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 did not care at all whether they were Christians or Muslims.

From this motley crowd they formed a fleet that was more reminiscent of a pirate fleet than a military one. He began to rage in the Mediterranean Sea, so much so that he terrified the Spanish, French and Italian ships. Sailing in the Mediterranean Sea itself began to be considered a dangerous business. Turkish corsair squadrons were based in Tunisia, Algeria and other Muslim lands that had access to the sea.

Ottoman navy

Thus, such a people as the Turks were formed from completely different peoples and tribes. And the connecting link was Islam and a common military destiny. During successful campaigns, Turkish warriors captured captives, made them their wives and concubines, and children from women of different nationalities became full-fledged Turks born on the territory of the Ottoman Empire.

The small principality, which 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 Ghazi. The Ottoman Turks also called their state the Sublime Porte, and 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. The Ottomans conquered these people 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 number 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 the Crimea and the Black Sea coast from them, 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 disgraceful agricultural practices. Officials squeezed all the juice out of the peasants, and therefore they farmed in a predatory way. This led to the emergence of a large amount of waste land. 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 their debts, since after the victories of Rumyantsev, Suvorov, Kutuzov, and Dibich, the Turkish economy was completely undermined. The French then brought a navy into the Aegean Sea and demanded customs in all ports, mining concessions and the right to collect taxes until the debt was repaid.

After this, the Ottoman Empire was called the “sick man of Europe.” It began to quickly lose its 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 movement).

On April 27, 1909, the Young Turks enthroned the constitutional monarch Mehmed V, who was the brother of the deposed Sultan. After this, 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 with a terrible massacre of Armenians, declaring that they were against the new regime. But they were really against it, since nothing had changed in the country. Everything remained the same as before for 500 years under the rule of the sultans.

After defeat in the First World War, the Turkish Empire began to die. Anglo-French troops occupied Constantinople, the Greeks captured Smyrna and moved deeper into the country. Mehmed V died on July 3, 1918 from 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 arose in the distant mountainous provinces. It was headed by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He led the common people with him. He very quickly expelled 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 been living quite happily in recent decades. They sing in the morning, dance in the evening, and pray during breaks. May Allah protect them!

Japan 17-18

State tuning: 2 heads of state: 1) really - SEGUN

2) nominally - TENNO (emperor, the cat cannot be called by name) - could conduct spiritual rituals.

1603 - the third dynasty of shoguns came to power - Takugawa (founder - Takugawa Ieyasu).

A centralized state, 1/4 of the well-cultivated land belonged to the shogun personally.

1573-1603-gr. war for the unification of the country (Mamoyamo period)

1603-1868 - reign of the Takugawa shoguns (EDO period)

1605 - Takugawa Ieyasu abdicated the throne, but retained real power until his death (1616)

Subordinate to the Shogun was TAYRO (Prime Minister), the cat performed the duties of the Shogun during his minority.

The government of the country was subordinate to the RODZYU (6-7 people) - the Council of Ministers.

RODJU did not have the right to enter into relations with SHOGUNS, but could communicate through intermediaries - SABAYONIN

ROZYU's assistants were WAKADOSHYORI (young old men)

Class system:

SINOKOSHO system (four-state)

SI - warriors (samurai)

BUT - peasants

KO - artisans

SOE - traders

---- "sword hunting" - weapons only for samurai

Outside the class stood a certain group of people - ETA - people of lower professions.

Samurai - a hired warrior, the cat was supposed to keep the peasants in the villages, had the right to carry two swords, but not all feudal lords were samurai., had the right to bear a surname, you cannot execute a samurai (only suicide); did not have the right to divide the land!

Daimyo (prince) - feudal lords, the pinnacle of samurai, headed the KHAN princedom, Daimyo led the samurai clan.

1) Fudai Daimyo - close daimyos, hereditary vassals, daimyos supporting the TAKUGAWA clan

2) Tuzamo daimyo - distant daimyos, former opponents of Takugawa

The authorities were constantly watching the Daimyo (his actions)!

HATAMOTO is a samurai directly subordinate to the Shogun.

Government apparatus from HATOMOTO.

1653 - confiscation of land from all samurai, except the daimyo. => crisis of the samurai class.

1597 - last Japanese intervention in Korea

Peasants - 80%

The most powerless and oppressed.

The peasants are attached to the land, do not move from landowner to landowner, do not change

occupation... they cannot be transferred or purchased.

Peasants could not drink alcohol, smoke, or wear silk clothes (only cotton)

Meadows and wastelands are for the common use of the peasants!

The village - MURA was divided into five-yards, the members of the five-yards were connected mutual guarantee

Mass of social layers:

3) GOSI (peasants descended from samurai) =>

4) DOGO (Rich peasants, Kulaks, owners of large plots) =>

5) HOMBYAKUSE (full members of the community, indigenous peasants =>

6) GENII - Tenants (not included in the village community and five-yard) =>

7) HIKAN - servant of hombyakuse - courtyard =>

8) MIZUNOMIBYAKUSHO - peasants drinking water.

City life:

Major cities: Kyoto and Edo => TOKYO - - - - half a million people,

The territory of Japan is approximately equal to the territory of Germany (3/4 are mountains!!!)

1633,1636,1639 - decrees on self-isolation of Japan

Reasons for self-isolation:: Fear of the authorities about the destruction of SINOKOSHO

The Japanese were prohibited from leaving the country;

Japanese expatriates are prohibited from returning to Japan

The city is open for trade - NAGASAKI; Foreigners are prohibited from going ashore.

An island for trade was also built - Dejima

Trade was carried out with China, Korea, and Holland.

Now Japan is a closed country!

The Rise of Japanese Culture

Deterioration of the economy: Bags of rice replaced money, the development of the country stopped.

SAKAN is the only autonomous city

Houses are numbered according to how recently they were built - hence the navigators.

Kyoto and Edo are cities with a population of over a million; the cities have been large since ancient times. The population is not growing due to high mortality. The territory of Japan is ¾ mountains.

1633, 1636, 1639 – three decrees on self-isolation of Japan were adopted. Reasons for self-isolation - (hypothesis) the authorities were afraid that foreigners would raise a peasant uprising and overthrow the government. Foreigners are prohibited from entering Japan and Japanese are prohibited from leaving the country. At the same time, before the adoption of the decrees, the Japanese often left the country. Japanese immigrants are prohibited from returning to Japan, as are their descendants. The policy of self-isolation did not mean that the authorities knew nothing... Nagasaki is the only city open to trade. In this city, foreigners were not allowed to go ashore. For trade, they created the artificial island of Dejima (20x40 m, height - 1 m), where trade was carried out with China, Korea and Holland, only they were allowed to trade. As a result, Japan became a closed country, and as a result:

1) rapid rise of urban culture (Ganroku period, 15 years, 1688-1703) – “+”

2) instead of money, bags of rice began to circulate, the development of the country practically stopped “-”

there was a coin RIO.

The only autonomous city is Sakai.

The two lower classes were structured into guild organizations. Before Tokugawa they were called "Za". They usually had their own patrons (a large feudal lord or a monastery), the majority of the Za opposed Tokugawa, and upon his arrival they were almost all disbanded, with the exception of those who did not fight against Tokugawa. New organizations loyal to Tokugawa were created, called Kabunakama - guilds of merchants and artisans. Some artisans infiltrated the samurai, usually through adoption. Often the privilege was enjoyed by the Kakeya, the financial agents of the government. The two lower classes were freer than the peasants. A rice exchange was established in the city of Osaka. Rice brokers - Kuramoto - Shogun and Daimyo gave them orders to sell rice, and received a percentage from it. The Kuramotos gradually became richer and soon a layer of Fudasashi appeared - moneylenders.

(Reign of the Tokugawa Shogun - Edo.)

OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN 17-18 CENTURIES.

European superpower. 6 million km 2. An absolute monarchy, headed by a sultan (the Europeans called it) = khan, ... united political and religious power. When Mecca and Medina became part of the empire, the khan called himself a prophet... The ideal of government is a constant struggle with the infidels. The Sultan has the right to kill all his brothers upon accession to the throne. The Sultan's main enemy is his son. Under the Sultan, the diwan functioned - the government of the country. It included four pillars of the state, each with its own administration.

The first pillar - the Grand Vizier (wore white clothes, had privileges) exercised military and administrative power, commanded the army, i.e. really ruled the country

The second pillar is Kadiasker = “judge of the soldiers” - the chief military judge of the country. At first there was one, later there were two.

The third pillar is Bashdefterdar - financier.

The fourth pillar - Nishanji - issued firmans.

Sheikh-ul-Eslam is the highest cleric of the empire, he had the right to life - he was not executed.

Reis Efendi - Minister of Foreign Affairs.

There was court etiquette, each official had his own elkab - a form of address. There was no nobility in the country. All officials wear a Kavuk headdress. Muslims wore turbans, non-Muslims wore caps. Huge Sultan's courtyard - approx. 10,000 people The courtyard was divided into external and internal. The outer one included servants, and the inner one included Dar-i Saaded - a harem. The outer courtyard was led by the eunuch Kapu-Agasy, the inner courtyard by the eunuch Kyzlar-Agasy.

The specifics of the Ottoman Empire - in economic terms, did not represent a single whole, because arose as a result of conquest and rested on military force, political power was pure tyranny. The economic parts of the empire were not connected with each other. There was no national market in the country (it appeared only in the mid-20s, forcibly). As soon as military power weakened, territories began to fall away from it.

The armed forces were clearly divided into two parts: Kapykulu - a professional army, 2nd part - local feudal cavalry - (sepahi). The main part of the kapikulu are the Janissaries. Once every three or 5 years, Janissaries were recruited. external service, internal service. Execution is only strangulation. Janissaries did not wear beards. The Janissary corps was divided into orts (companies, first 40 people, later 100), most of the Janissaries were engaged economic activity. The Janissaries received salaries 3-4 times a year - they were given books with which they could receive a salary.

Organization of local self-government. The country was divided into Eyalets (Vilayets). Originally 2 – Umelian and Anatolian. Later there were up to 28 eyalets. The eyalet was ruled by Beylerbey - he exercised military and administrative power, commanded the troops of the eyalet, and had his own divan and courtyard. Beylerbey had the right to distribute small Timars - service fiefs, awards. The boundaries between eyalets were constantly changing. The eyalets were divided into Sanjaks (“Districts”), headed by Sanjakbey, Ayan - defended the interests of local service feudal lords before the authorities, was elected by local service feudal lords

Feudal relations.

Empire of the Seljuk Turks. The vassal-feudal system originated here. The Ottoman Empire preserved this system. The essence: the feudal lord was given a berat (letter of grant for the estate), with which he appeared on the estate. The estate was divided into three parts: Timar, Zeamet, Hass.

Timar consisted of two parts: HassA-chiftlik, and HissE. HassA-chiftlik was awarded by right of the sword (for bravery), there is no need to send warriors from this land. HissE - warriors must be fielded.

Military service feudal lords are timariots. Timar owners were entitled to a share of the income from the timar and to limited administrative and judicial rights. The owners of hasses and zeamets had full administrative rights.

Waqf is church land, land belonging to a mosque or holy place. It arose as a result of a donation, was not subject to taxes, could not be sold, and could be exchanged for equivalent ones. The person who donated the waqf continued to manage it and retained part of the income. Their number increased (due to lack of taxes?).

Mulk is a private landholding. Land donation from the Sultan.

The specifics of the economy of the Ottoman Empire - the state needed money, subsistence farming dominated in the country - where did the money come from? A system of tax farming is being created - iltizam. The main figure is the tax farmer Multezim, who deposits a certain amount into the treasury, then, on this basis, confiscates part of the harvest from the peasants, sells it on the market - the difference is his net income. At the same time, the state receives money, but this is destructive for the peasantry.

The situation of the peasantry. There was no official nobility in the country, but the population was divided into two parts: Beraaya and Reaya. Beraaya is a tax-exempt population, reaya (“herd”) is a tax-paying population. The peasants lived poorly in Mulki and waqfs.

Peasants are obliged to support the feudal lords. For a long time there was no lordly smell.

The lands of the feudal lords were divided among the peasants; for the use of the land, they gave the feudal lord a share of the harvest. The feudal lord provided the peasant with Chift (chiftlik) - a plot of land from 6 to 16 hectares per family. For the first receipt of a chief, you need to pay a tax to the feudal lord - Tapu (300 acche). When transferring by inheritance, no tapu was charged. The peasant loses the land if he does not cultivate it. The period of non-cultivation of the land is at first 1 year, later they did 3. (peasants were recruited into the military forces = they were often sent on campaigns = the period of non-cultivation was increased). Failure to cultivate is the only reason for the loss of an allotment. The duties of the peasant were determined by custom, which does not mean that custom can be violated. The peasant was assigned to an allotment, and the feudal lords could search for fugitives. The period of investigation is from 15 to 20 years. The exception is Istanbul, where the length of the investigation is 1 year and 1 day (in 1453, Mehmet II captured Constantinople and invited fugitive peasants). Three forms of rent were present in the Ottoman Empire, namely in-kind, labor and cash, with natural (grocery) rent prevailing. There was almost no money. There was a small labor period (work for the feudal lord for 7 days a year). Muslim peasants paid ASHAR - 1/10 of the harvest. Non-Muslim peasants paid KHARAJ - 1/3 of the harvest. A mill tax was collected in favor of the feudal lord. There was a tax - AGNAM - a tax on small livestock: for the feudal lord 1 head per year per 50, in favor of the state - 1 akche per three heads. Marriage tax to the feudal lord - depending on the income of the peasant, from 10 to 50 akche. Land tax - RESMI-CHIFT was paid to the state. Adult non-Muslim men paid the state tax JIZYA - for non-service in the army. ISPENDJE – all non-Muslims pay the feudal lord.

The feudal lord appeared on the estate extremely rarely = did not take care of the farm. In favor of the state they bore AVARIZ - emergency duty in favor of the war. Subsequently, AVARIZ was replaced with a cash payment.

Ortakchi is a farm laborer who works from a share of the harvest.

There were a small number of slaves, but in the 17th century. the slaves disappeared.

In addition to the rural population, there was a nomadic population (20% of us) - the Turkmens (Yuryuks). Their situation was better than that of the peasants. They were organized into tribal unions (leaders - Khans) and could move around the empire in any direction. Pastures were specially allotted to them; plowing them was forbidden. The nomads did not pay taxes, but at the first call of the emperor, every fifth man had to go on a campaign.

City life.

The government needed the craft (weapons production) and encouraged it. Funds were invested in road construction and were stolen. A network of caravanserais was created. There was no industrial bourgeoisie, there was a trade bourgeoisie - not Turkish in origin. Islam initially did not recognize interest on loans; it was believed that if someone borrows money at interest, then he is paying money for time, and time belongs to Allah, one cannot pay for it.

In the center of the city there are houses of merchants (Greeks, Jews,...), on the outskirts there are houses (Turks). Turk is a “fool”. All subjects of the empire were called Ottomans, nothing else! Sultan Mehmet 2 established a sales tax (quite liberal). Pack is a measure. The main markets of Istanbul are ET-MAYDAN (“meat square”) and BESISTAN (“land of linen”). The Janissaries restored order. For violating the rules of trade, the merchant was nailed behind the ear to the door of the shop.

The subsistence economy of the peasants led to the organization of artisans and merchants of the cities into guild structures - ESNAF. ESNAFs had a monopoly. Craftsmen who did not enter Esnaf were expelled from the city. There was no division of labor between masters; hired labor was rarely used. Tools are manual and primitive. The workshops had self-government, the head was ESNAFBASHY. There was no unified city government. Mukhtars are neighborhood elders. Imams are leaders of prayer.

AVANI – illegal extortions from the authorities. Bilerbeys and sanjebeys openly robbed the population.

For a long time, the Ottoman Empire was the most tolerant state in Europe. The government recognized 3 non-Muslim faiths (Armenian-Gregorian, Greek Orthodox and Jewish). The government, with special charters, granted these denominations liberties: they did not pay taxes, religious publications of non-Muslim denominations could not be converted into mosques, complete freedom of worship. Finally, non-Muslim church sculptures controlled marriage and family relations and civil law among their adherents. In a dispute between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, the judge was KADI, a Muslim cleric. The person was subject to judgment by the priest of his faith. The trial was held in a mosque. Two women's certificates were equal to one man's.

The workshops regulated prices, determined production standards, trading days (you can’t trade all the time!), it was strictly forbidden to lure customers, property was not protected from the state. Owners of large fortunes transferred them abroad, invested money in real estate or turned them into treasure)). THIS STOPPED the development of the country.

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2017-12-12

INCREASING INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EMPIRE

By the beginning of the 17th century. The Ottoman Empire united within its borders vast territories of the Middle East, North Africa and South-Eastern Europe. It brought into a single state organism regions and human communities that differed from each other in economic, political, ethnic, cultural and religious relations, and had different experiences in their own state building.

At the same time, the conquerors did not try to carry out any deep social transformations in the conquered lands. In the first centuries of the empire’s existence, this principle made it easier for the conquered peoples to enter the new state, but gradually the contradictions grew. Anatolia, where the Turkish population lived compactly, was the first to feel its isolation from the imperial state structure. On the verge of the 16th–17th centuries. In Anatolia, a series of so-called “Jelali” uprisings occurred (see below), associated with disruptions in the functioning of the timar system, which fed the cavalry militia (sipahi), supported agriculture in the areas of its distribution and acted as a local territorial administration. The crisis of the timar system was generated by several reasons.

The state, taking care of the receipt of the taxes into the treasury that it continued to collect from the rayats living in the possessions of the sipahi, strictly recorded the income that went to the sipahi-timariot himself, i.e., it acted as a kind of protector of the peasant rayats. But already in the laws of Mehmed II there was a provision: if a sipahi “occupied the land of the rayat, then let him pay ... taxes [established] in this area.” Consequently, the sipahi had the legal opportunity to appropriate peasant lands, which sometimes happened. In the 17th century this process is intensifying. Due to the dispossession of the peasantry, new farms, the so-called chiftliks, are created. Legal status the lands were not changed, but state control over the preservation of the “reai” (previously considered the “treasury of the padishah”) was lost.

The problem was aggravated by the fact that in the 16th century, as sources record, a “demographic explosion” occurred in the country. It is estimated that the population of Anatolia increased by more than 50% (in Rumelia the growth was even more significant). Under these conditions, neither the rayat community nor sharecropping could accommodate such a rapidly increasing rural population. A significant number of chiefbozans, as peasants were called, who were forced to leave the land, appeared in the country. They found no use in economic life either in the city or in the countryside. The only opportunities for them to somehow get settled in life were to join the troops of large pashas, ​​who began to recruit their own army retinues, or to enter a tekke (dervish shelters) or madrasah as a soft (novice student). The number of software in the 17th century. significantly exceeded the need for them, and the semi-poor students of religious institutions became one of the restless elements of Ottoman society.

Sultanahmet Mosque (Blue Mosque). 1609–1616 Istanbul

By the beginning of the 17th century. the so-called “price revolution”, which had previously passed through Western Europe due to the arrival there of a significant amount of gold and silver from the New World. The change in the scale of prices also affected the position of the sipahis, whose income was clearly defined by their “berat” (letter of grant) in a precisely fixed amount of money. The timars of ordinary sipahi stopped providing them with the support they needed for life and service.

Already in the 16th century, as Turkish researchers note, the areas of cultivated land in the Ottoman Empire reached the limits allowed by the technology of that era. The authorities, however, continued to distribute timars and increased the number of soldiers obliged to serve for the income from these timars. Censuses of the Sipahi militia recorded that there was polarization among the Timariots. Most of them received minimal incomes, giving them the opportunity to personally participate in hostilities as cavalrymen. Horsemen armed at their own expense (who were previously supposed to be withdrawn from every 5 thousand akche of income) could now only be supported by sanjakbeys. Some of them, according to the censuses of the early 17th century, had an income almost equal to the income of all the sipahi of the sanjak. The middle ranks of the Timariots gradually disappeared, and ordinary sipahi turned into a kind of impoverished European knights.

And finally, the main thing. The importance of the Sipahi army fell. Cavalry could conduct military operations only in the warm season. In winter it was dissolved. The routes along which the army was assembled, the speed of movement, and the timing of the gathering were firmly determined. It took the army at least 100 days to cover the route from Istanbul to the Austro-Hungarian lands, where the war was going on in the 17th century. Consequently, in its actions of conquest, the Ottoman army acted within the limits of its operational capabilities. The advent of handguns (muskets) increased the importance of infantry compared to cavalry.

"JELALI" UPRISING. THEIR CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FATES OF THE EMPIRE

By the turn of the XVI–XVII centuries. In Anatolia there are many people who have lost or are losing their former social status. These included rayats, softas, who were pushed out of the agrarian sphere, who did not receive a place in the judicial-religious structure, small timariots, unable to provide themselves with the necessary equipment to participate in the sipahi militia, descendants of warriors of the Anatolian beyliks, peasant and tribal militias of the first years of the conquests, who did not deserve timars , but considered themselves to belong to the military community (askers). The presence of these individuals destabilized the situation in the region. The impetus for increasing destabilization was given by a new war with the Habsburgs, which began in 1593.

When going on a campaign and taking their timariots with them, the eyalet managers appointed kaymakams (deputies) in their place, who were supposed to perform administrative functions during their absence. Some of the beylerbey's troops remained at the disposal of the kaymakams, now, as a rule, mercenaries. The mercenary units were supported by the fact that they were allowed to collect additional (not registered by the state) taxes for their benefit from the population of the sanjaks and eyalets subject to their employers. The Kadis reported to Istanbul about numerous complaints from the population about the robberies committed by these mercenaries. If the bey was deprived of his position (in case of unrest, resignation, displacement), these warriors turned into real robbers, acting under different names- Levenda, Sekban, Delhi, Saryja, etc. As a result, the administration of Anatolia completely fell apart. Often there were clashes between beylerbeys and sanjakbeys returning from the theater of military operations with their own kaymakams. Those who had more personal troops won, and therefore appointments to local administrative positions began to leave the hands of the central authorities. Under these conditions, the Anatolian Timariots were reluctant to leave their possessions and go to war in distant Europe.

In 1596, after the battle of Kereztes (Hungary), the Ottoman army carried out another check of the available composition of the Timariot cavalry. The absence of many timariotes was revealed. For failure to fulfill military duties, the Timariots were ordered to be confiscated from 30 thousand Timariots, and they themselves were to be executed. Some deserters were actually executed. The bulk of the former Timariots rushed to Anatolia, where they joined the Sekban-Levend units that had previously operated there, replenishing them numerically and giving them a clearly anti-government attitude.

At the very end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. tension in the Anatolian region reached its limit and eventually resulted in numerous military-organized uprisings, called Celal (named after Sheikh Celal, who led one of the anti-Ottoman uprisings in Anatolia at the beginning of the 16th century). The rebels devastated villages and small towns, burned out a number of neighborhoods of the former Ottoman capital Bursa, took the fortresses of Urfa and Tokkat, and destroyed the outskirts of cities such as Konya, Amasya, and Kayseri. They acted on the side of the rebels different times many beylerbeys, sanjakbeys, commandants of fortresses, as well as the sons of the Crimean Khan, who lived as hostages in Anatolia. Sheikh ul-Islam Sanullah was accused of sympathizing with the rebels. The largest uprisings were led by Kara-Yazıcı and Deli Hasan (1599–1603), as well as Kalender-oglu (1592–1608), who declared that they were trying to wrest Anatolia from the rule of the Ottoman dynasty.

Since the main army of the empire was at that time busy with the war in Europe, individual military leaders with mercenary troops were sent against the rebels, that is, with warriors who had fallen out of the previous social environment, just like the rebels whom they were supposed to pacify. There were frequent cases when pashas, ​​sent by the government to suppress uprisings, but who were unable to fulfill the assignment entrusted to them, fearing the wrath of the Sultan, went over to the side of the Dzhelal and even became their leaders. The government, wanting to attract the most popular leaders of the uprisings to its side, sometimes offered them high administrative positions, for example, beylerbeys and sanjakbeys, although in Rumelia, and not in Anatolia, where they acted as jelali. And such proposals were accepted. The government was able to cope with the uprisings only after hastily concluding peace with Austria (1606) and using the freed army to suppress the movement. However, individual performances of the jelali continued throughout the first half of the 17th century.

The uprisings had a detrimental effect on the fate of many groups of the population, but especially the peasantry. In Anatolia, virtually everyone fought against everyone. In 1603, the so-called “great flight” (buyuk kachgunluk) began of the peasantry, forced to leave their homes and villages due to the devastation caused by military operations. Some peasants joined the Celali troops, others were hired into government troops, but the vast majority tried to flee to quieter areas of the empire. Censuses of the second decade of the 17th century. They record, for example, an increase in the Balkans in the number of people who arrived from Anatolia and paid jizya, that is, non-Muslims. First of all, the Christian population of Anatolia fled there, and therefore the ethnic and religious picture of this part of the empire changed radically. As a result of the “Great Flight,” many regions of Anatolia were deprived of their peasant population, and the area of ​​agricultural culture began to shrink. Cattle breeding began to dominate. The Celali period, therefore, affected not only the social and demographic spheres, but also the economic basis of life in Anatolia.

After the suppression of the uprisings, the government formally restored the timar system and the Sipahi militia in Anatolia, but did not eliminate the ulcers that were corroding these institutions from the inside. The number of chiftliks continued to grow on the lands of large timar owners. The bulk of the Timariots remained, although numerous (in the 17th century, the empire could gather up to 200 thousand sipahi cavalrymen), but materially worse off and thirsty for new lands.

THE INCREASING ROLE OF KAPYKULU IN THE MILITARY AND MANAGERIAL STRUCTURE OF THE EMPIRE

In the Ottoman army, the Sipahi cavalry ceased to be the main striking force. The role of the kapikulu (“slaves of the [August] threshold”), people from the devshirme, slaves from the Caucasus, and professional warriors in the Sultan’s pay is increasing. Among the Kapikulu, the most famous infantry army is the Janissaries, but there were also other units, both infantry and cavalry, auxiliary, and later those with special technical equipment (for example, gunners, etc.). In addition to cash salaries, they received food, equipment, and weapons from the treasury. More than half of all state income was spent on their salaries alone (budget data for the 1660/61 financial year). It is no coincidence that Kochibey, who came from a Sipahi environment, addressed the Sultan in the 40s of the 17th century. wrote about the dominance of foreign elements in all government bodies. Discontent in Ottoman society was caused not so much by ethnic as by social contradictions, but those from the devşirme (a collection of boys from the families of Christian subjects of the empire) were indeed not Turks or Muslims by origin, which aggravated the conflict situation.

The top of the kapykulu, occupying the positions of viziers and beylerbeys, members of the Sultan's divan and commanders of the troops on salary, were involved in a different type of land grant from the timar sipahi - hass and arpalyk, which were not inherited, were associated with a specific position, but had larger sizes than all other Sultan's awards. In the large estates of the kapikulu and the palace nobility, managers appeared, while their owners themselves continued to live and work in the capital or another place appointed by the sultan, being only a kind of rent recipients. But they increasingly laid claim to the land fund that previously fed the sipahi. Sometimes, however, using the same term “timar”, income from non-agrarian or generally unidentified sources of income was also recorded as kapikulu. Thus, when janissary detachments were stationed in the provinces, their commanders were entitled to timar, but it was nothing more than deductions from the salaries of the janissaries subordinate to them. Consequently, while remaining formally and including the apex of the capykulu, the timar system was degenerated from the inside.

The bulk of the Sipahi cavalry began to consist of detachments of beylerbeys, formed from their personal mercenaries. They literally robbed the inhabitants of the areas under their control. Beylerbeys had to pay mercenaries and the central government for their appointment, since such positions were effectively auctioned off. Attempts to curb the beylerbeys from the center often led to their uprisings; sometimes even their coalitions were created, threatening to march on Istanbul. But these were not uprisings of the territories they controlled, but only military rebellions, “revolts of the pashas,” who did not have any support among the local residents. Under these conditions, the local population tried to self-organize from below. A new local administrative layer was taking shape, associated with the taxation system (the services of which the Ottoman government increasingly began to resort to when collecting taxes to the treasury), hereditary waqfs, the management of the sultan and other khasses, and the city elite. The local nobility gradually became the local administration, these were not robbers, but persons associated with production activities population. The source of their income was rent taxes from the peasantry or income from crafts and trade. This new nobility was called the Ayana. They also had their own supporters in the Sultan’s entourage, who also wanted to restore order in the country.

CRISIS OF THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY

In the capital of the empire at the turn of the 16th–17th centuries. marked by a crisis of power. Its manifestation was the frequent change of officials, the aggravation of the traditional struggle between the top clans, and the increasing role of the harem. Under Sultans Murad III (1574–1595) and Mehmed III (1595–1603), their mothers (valide), Nurbanu Sultan and Safiye Sultan, respectively, both Venetian by birth, gained great influence.

There was a process of depreciation of money. The exchange rate of the main monetary unit, the acche, was falling. By 1630, the Ottoman monetary system had virtually collapsed. Even within the Ottoman economic space, large payments began to be made in Spanish currency (reals, piastres). Corruption has become widespread. Even Sultan Murad III was said to be not above taking bribes. The Janissaries, previously distinguished by iron discipline, begin to rebel (the first riot occurred in 1589), turning into a kind of Praetorian Guard, replacing unwanted statesmen. At the same time, they became closer to merchants and artisans, since in conditions of severe inflation, the Janissaries were forced to look for additional sources of material support.

In Algeria, Syria, Iraq in 1596–1610. An atmosphere of rebellion and complete anarchy reigned. In Yemen, al-Hasa and others Arabian lands Ottoman power virtually fell. In Tunisia and Western Tripoli, the Janissaries, with the support of the urban poor, seized power. Independent states actually arose there (in Tunisia in 1594, in Western Tripoli in 1603) led by dey - elected Janissary rulers, only nominally subordinate to the Ottoman pashas. In Algeria, a similar regime developed in 1659–1671. In Egypt in 1587–1605. There were five Janissary revolts. In 1609, the rebel Mamluks attempted to proclaim an independent Mamluk state in Lower Egypt. Druze emirs rebelled in Syria and Lebanon. Uprisings in the Ottoman vassal principalities - Moldavia (1572–1574), Wallachia (1594–1601), Transylvania (1594) - involved neighboring Poland and the Crimean Khanate in the border struggle. The latter, shortly before this, for the first time refused to send troops to the Iranian front. In the wars with Iran 1577–1590, 1603–1618, 1623–1639. The Ottoman authorities were forced to think about maintaining a mutually beneficial silk trade, which forced them to moderate their claims to the neighboring state. Only customs duties from the silk trade provided the Sultan with 300 thousand gold pieces annually, which replenished his personal treasury. The treasury deficit in 1608 was over 100 thousand. During the wars, up to three-quarters of the looms in Bursa were idle due to a shortage of silk, and Iran was intensively looking for trade partners, negotiating with Spain, Italian cities, England and Russia. Under treaties with Iran in 1612 and 1618. The Ottomans ceded Tabriz and Eastern Transcaucasia they had conquered, which was the price for resuming trade. In the war of 1623–1639, when Shah Abbas I managed to occupy Iraq, Transcaucasia and held Baghdad for fifteen years, the Ottomans had difficulty regaining these territories (Yerevan was taken in 1635–1636; Baghdad in 1638). But according to the Qasr-i Shirin Treaty of 1639, the border actually returned to the line of 1555, which corresponded to the interests of both states and made it possible to resume trade.

NORTH AFRICA AND THE ARABIA PENINSULA: WEAKENING OTTOMAN POWER

The system of government established by the Ottomans in Egypt, in which the civilian governor (pasha) actually did not have the ability to control the Ottoman troops, led to the fact that in the 17th century. Egypt's subordination to Istanbul became more and more nominal. The Mamluk influence was not completely destroyed. Gradually, some of them joined the Ottoman troops and administration, as well as through the purchase of rights to collect taxes and into the new land tenure system. The serious financial crisis that the empire faced at the end of the 16th century led to a number of uprisings already mentioned. More and more often, rival Mamluk families succeeded in removing governors from their posts. Usually, for this purpose, complaints were written to Istanbul, which satisfied the requests of its subjects, apparently understanding the current balance of power in Egypt. The Mamluks even developed a special ritual for removing the governor: they sent a messenger to him on a donkey dressed in white raincoat and a white hat. He entered the reception hall at the Pasha’s residence, folded up the edge of the carpet on which he was sitting, and according to one version, said “Pasha! You are displaced,” and on the other hand, he simply left silently.

Since the beginning of the 17th century, the situation on the Arabian Peninsula has also changed. The local population in Yemen showed dissatisfaction with Ottoman rule. This was caused both by heavy taxes and the presence of conquering troops in Yemen, and by religious reasons: most of the local residents belonged to the Shiites. This predetermined the slogans of the struggle against the Ottomans - the Imamate (which existed before the Turkish conquest) was again proclaimed. The first imam, al Mansur al Kassir (1559–1620), was supported by local tribes and residents of the Hajj fortress, and he began to recapture Yemen from the empire. His son and successor managed to finally oust the Ottomans from the country in 1644.

The balance of power has changed both in neighboring Oman and in the Persian Gulf. In 1622, Abbas I, in alliance with the British, gained control of the exit from the bay, capturing Hormuz from the Portuguese. The Portuguese maintained their position in Muscat until the late 40s of the 17th century, when the city was captured by one of the Arab sheikhs, who made it the capital of the new Omani Sultanate. In the 90s, the most famous of the rulers of the sultanate, Saif bin Sultan (1690–1707), began expansion into East Africa. His fleet won a number of significant victories over the Portuguese, British and Dutch. The Omani Sultanate took control of the coast as far as Mozambique and a significant part of the trade in the Indian Ocean.

In Morocco, it controlled most of the country in the second half of the 16th century. The Saadian state collapsed at the beginning of the 17th century. into two parts with centers in Fez and Marrakech. The Europeans (now not the Portuguese, but the Spaniards) took advantage of the civil strife, seizing part of the ports, as well as local clans, who created independent principalities in the South and North. In the further struggle for power, the Alaouites won, and in the 60s they subjugated part of Morocco. The second sultan of the dynasty, Moulay Ismail (1672–1727), continued to conquer the lands that remained independent or semi-independent for another two decades. In 1687, Moulay Ismail faced a revolt of the Berbers, who sided with his opponents and were supported by the Ottomans. Therefore, he ordered the creation of an army of several thousand dark-skinned Sudanese, who were recruited in Timbuktu (Timbuktu). Subsequently, their children were trained first in the handling of mules and construction (which was useful for Moulay's large-scale projects in Meknes), and then in horseback riding and the use of weapons. Black soldiers, whose position was dependent or semi-dependent, were given the right to buy land in the late 90s. Fortresses (kasbahs) were built throughout Morocco, which were supposed to strengthen the ruler's control over the territory. Moulay recaptured some cities from the Spaniards, tried unsuccessfully to seize Ottoman possessions in Algeria, and established trade contacts with the Dutch, British and French. The latter became by the end of the 17th century. play a leading role in Moroccan trade.

In Europe, after the conclusion of peace in 1606 with Austria, the Ottoman Empire did not have any territorial increments, although it was there that it hoped to satisfy the land hunger of the Sipahi strata of society. The Central European powers, occupied with the Thirty Years' War since 1618, received some respite from the Ottoman onslaught at this time, although border instability in the region persisted. Wanting to give the population a break from the tyranny of the beylerbeys, the Ottoman government sometimes attracted Anatolian, Rumelian and other pashas with their subordinate troops for military operations in the Danube principalities, Transylvania, the Black Sea region and even in clashes with Poland and Austria, and this was when the empire of some or did not wage wars in this region.

A small part of the Sultan's entourage understood the need for more or less radical changes. The majority advocated the restoration of the good old order, the preservation and strengthening of those socio-economic and political institutions that had developed under Suleiman I Kanuni. Such nostalgic ideas about the past were supported by the Timariots, many Janissaries, the peasantry and the Muslim clergy.

The first reformer of the Ottoman order, Sultan Osman II (1618–1622), fell victim to such sentiments. First of all, he wanted to get rid of the influence of the kapikulu, women and harem servants, relying on various Janissary groups. He intended to disband the Janissaries and other military units of the Kapikulu and create a new army. It was supposed to be formed by attracting young people from the Muslim regions of Anatolia and Syria into the army, i.e. the Sultan sought to Turkicize the army and the state apparatus, ridding them of the dominance of outsiders from the Kapikulu. His intention to move the capital to Turkish Bursa or Ankara was also connected with this. The Sultan also planned a reform of the Sheikh ul-Islamat and the entire apparatus of Sharia power; he wanted to form the hierarchy of the ulema himself. In 1621, Osman II, under the pretext of performing the Hajj, began preparations to leave Istanbul. In response to this, the Janissaries, incited by the clergy, rebelled and, on the basis of a fatwa by Sheikh ul-Islam, deposed Osman II, and then subjected him to a brutal and humiliating execution.

After the death of Osman II, opposite sentiments prevailed in Istanbul - the policy of traditionalism, implying the eradication of heretical “innovations” and the restoration of the old Ottoman order. Meanwhile, the struggle between various groups of kapikulu and provincial pashas continued in the country, repeatedly threatening to march on the capital (for example, during the uprising of Abaza Pasha in 1622–1628). Various armed gangs were rampant in Istanbul, robbing and even killing the most prosperous citizens.

Sultan Murad IV, who came to power in 1623, managed to restore relative order. Under him, the commanders of individual Janissary corps and the leaders of various factions of the ruling class signed a common document - a declaration of support for the Sultan. With the assistance of the Janissaries, a mass massacre of members of armed gangs was organized. Murad IV made a fairly successful attempt to restore the timar system as the financial and economic basis of the Ottoman army and administration. The terrible fire of Istanbul that occurred at this time (almost a quarter of the city burned out) was declared a sign of Allah punishing for apostasy from Sharia. Alcoholic drinks, coffee, and tobacco were strictly prohibited, and all coffee shops and drinking establishments, which were considered a breeding ground for freethinking, were closed. Confessional differences in clothing and hats began to be observed more strictly. Internal espionage, denunciation, and all kinds of surveillance have intensified. There were legends that the Sultan himself, in a simple dress, secretly wanders the streets, watching his subjects, and then severely punishes them for all sorts of, even minor, violations. The successes of Murad IV were, however, short-lived, and the people retained a bad memory of him.

Under the next Sultan Ibrahim I (1640–1648) and in the first years of the reign of Mehmed IV (1648–1687), who was enthroned at the age of seven, discord in the ruling circles and the struggle for power intensified. Corruption continued and all positions in the state were sold at auction. The influence of the harem on the internal life and even external relations of the empire increased. Valide (mother of the Sultan) Kösem Sultan was even suspected of secret connections with the Venetians during the war for Crete that began at that time (1645). The process of depreciation of money intensified, which caused one of the most powerful urban uprisings in Istanbul in 1651. The suppression of the uprising, the confiscation of property from a number of courtiers, and harsh punishments for bribes made it possible to somewhat stabilize financial situation. Political chaos still continued. From 1651 to 1656 there were eight great viziers. And finally, after numerous consultations in the court environment, the position of grand vizier under the 15-year-old Sultan Mehmed IV was given to the 70-year-old Köprül Mehmed Pasha. He was a powerful man who had gone through a great school of court and beylerbey service. He demanded and received emergency powers.

Köprülü VISERS AND THEIR TRANSFORMATIONS

Köprülü Mehmed Pasha became the founder of an entire dynasty of great viziers. He himself held this position until the end of his life, and was succeeded by his son Fazıl Ahmed Pasha (1661–1676), then by his son-in-law Kara Mustafa (1673–1683). Several other scions of this family held vizier positions later. All of them had a reputation for honest and capable administrators, which had developed under the first Köprülü.

Using harsh measures (expulsions, executions, confiscations), Mehmed Pasha managed to pacify the rebellious Kapikulu troops, deal with the students of the madrasah (softa) and part of the dervishes who opposed the inhabitants of the tekke and the official Muslim clergy, whom they accused of sins and gluttony. In his actions, Mehmed Pasha received the support of Sheikh ul-Islam. The Grand Vizier managed to appoint his supporters to all the highest positions of the state, including the posts of heads of millets (religious and ethnic communities of the non-Muslim population of the empire). He suppressed the uprising in Transylvania and the performance of a number of Anatolian beylerbeys. In punitive measures, the vizier acted very harshly and did not allow anyone to interfere in his affairs. His main argument, which forced even the Sultan to agree with decisions and appointments that were not always favorable to him, was that he needed a calm rear to fight Venice. War with the Republic of St. The March had been going on since 1645 and at times put the Ottomans in a very difficult position, when the threat of attack loomed even over Istanbul. In 1657, Mehmed Pasha managed to achieve a turning point in the war and lift the blockade of the Dardanelles, which especially strengthened the authority of the great vizier.

Mehmed Pasha's son, Fazil Ahmed Pasha (1661–1676), who succeeded him, also did not renounce executions and punitive measures, but proved himself to be a more subtle administrator. Unlike his father, who was obviously illiterate, he received a good education, intended to become an ulema, and only at the insistence of his father followed in his footsteps. Sultan Mehmed IV withdrew from any affairs of governing the country. He went down in history with the nickname “Avji” (Hunter) and is known not as a statesman, but as a lover of entertainment and pleasure. Great celebrations were held at the court, poets, musicians and scientists gathered. This environment of the Sultan was largely shaped by Ahmed Pasha and created a new mood in the court environment. A new bureaucracy was growing in the country. These were no longer kapikulu slaves taken by devshirm, cut off from society, devoted and dependent only on the Sultan, and not beylerbeys, “caliphs for an hour,” rebelling against the center, but having no support among the population of the regions subordinate to them. New leaders were worried about the fate of the empire (and their place in it, of course), trying to preserve the order that in the past gave it strength and the opportunity to be a “great power.” They were more professional and educated. It is no coincidence that it was at this time that the separation of the government apparatus of the Ottoman Empire from the palace and palace services took place. A special building is even being built for him, a new residence of the Grand Vizier, located outside the Topkapi palace complex - Bab-i Ali (“High Gate”), which in Russian became known in French as the expression “High Porte” (French: La Sublime Porte ). It was the Porta, and not the Sultan's palace, that became the personification of the Ottoman state. Without eliminating the essence of the crisis, the first two viziers from the Köprülü family managed to calm and subjugate the country, and brought order to the financial sector.

Much attention began to be paid to the timar system, which has now spread to new layers of the army. Timars began to be given to officers of the navy and various technical troops. However, in fact, the old forms and names covered up new agrarian relations. Now the state itself increased the tax burden, regardless of the resources' capabilities. The overwhelming majority of raiyat peasants turn into sharecroppers, whose land rights were not protected by the state. A large number of individuals are emerging who are seeking to farm out tax revenues to the treasury and build their relationships with taxpayers on a private law basis. There was a gap between the tax and timar systems of the state. From the second half of the 17th century. the term "reaya" in the sense of a state-protected taxpayer ceases to be used in relation to the Muslim peasantry, who turned into sharecroppers on their land. Only non-Muslims who paid the jizya tax, which during Köprülü’s time gave 20% of the empire’s income, began to be perceived as reaya.

The restoration of the timar system, verification and streamlining of rights to timars were largely formal and declarative. But the viziers of Köprülü made this system work for the last time and stirred up the hopes of that mass of troops that overflowed many regions of the empire. They longed for new lands, and therefore wanted new conquests. The strict police-administrative control and financial order established by the Köprülü viziers made possible the new and last successful wave of Ottoman conquests in Europe. The conquest of Crete had not yet been completed (the Kandyan War of 1645–1669), but the campaign against Austria (1663–1664), then the war with Poland (1672–1677), and then Russia (1678–1681) had already begun. New timars were distributed in Crete and Podolia. The Ukrainian lands did not live up to the hopes of the Ottoman Empire, however. Podolia, whose inhabitants, tired of the Cossack-Polish strife, greeted the Ottoman troops with bread and meat in 1672, could not become a worthy object for timar “colonization.” It could not even feed the Turkish garrison of the Kamenets-Podolsky fortress, whose supplies came from Moldova. The lands of Podolia, devastated by previous wars, did not provide the expected income to the new Timariots, who by the beginning of the 80s literally fled from this area.

For distribution to the timars, not just land was required, but cultivated and populated land. After all, timar was essentially not a land grant, but the right to collect part of state taxes from the subject population. Hence the interest of the Ottoman state in newly developed agricultural spaces and the preservation of the local population. The war with Poland and Russia did not give this. According to the treaty with Russia in 1681, it was stipulated that the lands between the Dnieper and the Bug should remain uninhabited and deserted.

The very turn of Ottoman expansion towards Eastern Europe was unexpected for the Sultan’s entourage. It was provoked not so much by the supposed benefits as by the appeal of Hetman Petro Doroshenko to accept him, along with Ukraine, into Ottoman citizenship. This gave rise to hopes for an easy and rapid territorial expansion of the imperial borders. However, the Austro-Hungarian direction remained the most desirable for the Ottomans’ new conquests. Campaign 1663–1664 did not bring success, but aroused new desires. As Ottoman chroniclers of those years report, acquaintance with the Austrian lands and high level The lives of the population made a “demoralizing” impression on the Ottoman army. They saw a “Giaur paradise” in these parts. Vienna, the point where the Ottoman conquests stopped under Suleiman Kanuni, was again declared to be the “red apple” that, according to legend, would fall into the hands of the Muslim ghazis and mark the final goal of Ottoman expansion. In 1683, the third vizier from the Köprülü family, son-in-law and pupil of Mehmed Pasha, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa again led the Ottoman troops to Vienna.

The campaign against Vienna ended in a crushing defeat of the Ottoman troops and the execution of the commander. The consequences of this defeat were the formation of an anti-Ottoman coalition of European powers - the Holy League (Austria, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Venice, and later (from 1686) Russia). The League's military operations lasted 16 years, carried out on four fronts, located at a considerable distance from the main base of the Ottoman state - Anatolia, where at that time the new stage riots. The military enthusiasm of the early Köprülü days faded, and mass desertion was observed. Detachments of Levends appeared again, looking for their leaders, who now grew out of the rebels themselves. In official historiography, these performances were called tyuredi isyanlars, i.e., “upstart uprisings.”

The Türedi troops and their most authoritative leader, Egen Osman Belyuk-bashi, played a decisive role in the overthrow of Sultan Mehmed IV in 1687. The new Sultan Suleiman II (1687–1691) officially included these warriors in the Ottoman army, and their commander was appointed commander-in-chief. But Egen Osman had no experience leading such large armed forces. The defeat of the Ottoman troops near Belgrade (September 1688) was the result of intrigues among the army directed against the commander, and became a pretext for his resignation. He himself was executed, and his troops disappeared into a new mass of soldiers who were drafted into the army by general mobilization. The new grand vizier from the Köprülü family, Mustafa Pasha, who was appointed at this time, managed to mobilize the country’s forces and find funds to financially support the “sacred struggle” against the infidels, not even stopping at encroaching on waqf property. Initially, they achieved noticeable successes on the Austrian front, recapturing Nis and Belgrade, but then a streak of failures began again. The great vizier himself died in the battle of Salankamen (August 1691).

The war ended with the Peace of Karlowitz in 1699. The Ottoman Empire lost significant territories: Eastern Hungary, Transylvania and almost all of Slovakia went to Austria, Right Bank Ukraine with Podolia went to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Morea, a number of islands of the Archipelago and the fortresses of Dalmatia went to Venice. According to the peace treaty of 1700, concluded in Istanbul, Russia retained Azov and its adjacent lands. End of the War of 1684–1699 marked the beginning of a new stage in Ottoman history, which is characterized by the cessation of expansion in Europe and significant changes in the internal life of the country.

Huge human losses in wars and uprisings of the 17th century. weakened the influence of the demographic factor and contributed to consolidation in the ranks of the ruling class. The former rivalry between the “slaves of the Sultan’s threshold” (kapikulu) and the sipahi disappears. The practice of devshirme ceased to be used. Both the ruling elite and the soldiers in the Sultan's pay (i.e., Janissaries, etc.) began to fill their ranks with people from their own environment. The timar system ceased to serve as the basis of local government and control land use. Local power passes to local ayans, who, having concentrated significant monetary wealth, lands and other real estate in their hands, acquired a certain public authority and support from local qadis. They began to be appointed not from the people of the court or the local nobility. Moreover, commissions began to be created: at the center they included Sheikh ul-Islam and other senior clergy, who were supposed to streamline the relationship between various tax collections, and at the local level - representatives of townspeople and peasants who determined tax rates. Attempts were made to bring order to the chaos of the land tenure system, which all sources of that time speak of. The palace schools, where devshirme slaves had previously studied, now began to enroll “uncouth” Turks from Anatolia. A new nobility began to form with new tastes and even a new language, in which there were more Turkish words and terms and the use of Persian and Arabic was reduced. The clerical service was reformed, vacancies in which began to be filled by more trained young people who had undergone special training.

The Grand Vizier Amja-zade Hussein Pasha and his like-minded Reis ul-Kuttab (“Chief of Officials”) Rami Mehmed, who signed the Karlowitz Agreements on behalf of the Porte, understood that the country needed a shameful peace. Both forced and necessary post-war easing were needed. Whether they will be continued and whether the new nobility will be able to renew the country was to be shown by the new century.

(since the decline of Byzantium), was formed in Anatolia by Turkic tribes. The state existed until 1922 - the moment of the formation of the Turkish Republic. Named after the first sultan - the founder

At the beginning of his reign, the Sultan expanded his inheritance, annexing territories from the Marmara and Black Seas, a significant part of the land west of the Sakarya River.

After Osman's death, Orhan ascended the throne. During his reign, the capital of the state was established - Bursa (a former Byzantine city).

After Orhan, his eldest son Murad 1 became the ruler. This great statesman managed to strengthen the presence of his state’s troops in Europe. Murad 1 defeated the Serbian prince in 1389. As a result of this battle, the Ottoman Empire acquired most of the southern territory of the Danube.

The system of government in the country was built on a combination of Byzantine, Seljuk and Arab traditions and customs. In the lands that the Ottomans conquered, they tried to preserve local traditions as much as possible and not destroy historically established relations.

The territory of the Ottoman Empire expanded even further during the reign of Murad 1's son, Bayezid 1. The most significant victory was the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396 (on the Danube). However, despite external prosperity, the Ottoman Empire experienced quite serious difficulties, both external and internal. Mainly, the ruler's mannered behavior, his huge harem, and elaborate ceremonies in the palace irritated many ghazis. In addition, Bayezid's campaigns against Muslims and other ghazis in Asia Minor also caused concern. As a result, most of the local beys went over to Tamerlane and convinced him to start a war against the Ottoman ruler.

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 Tamerlane's subsequent campaigns. However, the sultans retained power over some territories of the country.

During the 15th century, the Ottoman state pursued a policy of internal reconstruction and external expansion and strengthening of borders.

The 16th century became “golden” for the empire. During this period, the country was ruled by Suleiman 1, who attached great importance to strengthening the naval power of the state. The mid-16th century saw the heyday 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 legislation.

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. Previously, there was a rather cruel tradition in the empire - the sultan who ascended 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 entire lives, until the death of the ruler. When the Sultan died, the eldest of the prisoners took his place. As a result, almost all the sultans who reigned in the 17th and 18th centuries were not intellectually developed and, of course, had no 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 lost much of its power in the Mediterranean in the 18th century. 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. Decline of the Turkish military-feudal state

By the middle of the 17th century. The decline of the Ottoman Empire, which began already in the previous century, was clearly visible. Turkey still controlled 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 Grand Seigneur, or the Great Turk, as he was called in European documents - was still considered one of the most powerful sovereigns. The military power 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, by the level of social, economic and cultural development, by the degree of dependence on the 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 remaining provinces they were scattered among the indigenous population, which they never managed to assimilate.

Turkish domination over the oppressed peoples of the empire was thus based almost exclusively on military violence alone. This kind of domination could last for a more or less long period only if there were sufficient means to carry out this violence. Meanwhile, the military power of the Ottoman Empire was steadily declining. The military-feudal system of land tenure, inherited by the Ottomans from the Seljuks and at one time being one of the most important reasons successes of Turkish weapons, has lost its former significance. Formally, legally, it continued to exist. But its actual content has changed so much that from a factor in strengthening and enriching the Turkish feudal class, it turned into a source of its ever-increasing weakness.

Decomposition of the military-feudal system of land tenure

The military-feudal character of the Ottoman Empire determined its entire domestic and foreign policy. Prominent Turkish politician and writer of the 17th century. Kocibey Gomyurjinsky noted in his “risal” (treatise) that the Ottoman state “was won by a saber and can only be supported by a saber.” Receiving military booty, slaves and tribute from conquered lands was for several centuries the main means of enriching the Turkish feudal lords, and direct military violence against the conquered peoples and the Turkish working masses was the main function of state power. Therefore, from the moment the Ottoman state emerged, the Turkish ruling class directed all its energy and attention to creating and maintaining a combat-ready army. The 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 fiefs themselves - sipahi, who for this purpose received from the state land fund on the basis of conditional ownership rights large and small estates (zeamet and timar) with the right to collect a certain part rent-tax in your favor. Although this system did not apply to all territories captured by the Turks, its importance was decisive for the Turkish military-feudal state as a whole.

At first, the military system operated clearly. It directly resulted 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 military, but also the main political force of the Ottoman Empire; they constituted, in the words of a Turkish source, “a real fight for the faith and the state.” The military-feudal system freed the state budget from the main part of the costs of maintaining 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 cash salary, but the military-female system of land tenure indirectly influenced them, opening up for commanders and even ordinary soldiers the tempting prospect of receiving military fiefs and thereby becoming sipahis.

At first, the military-feudal system did not have a detrimental effect on the peasant economy. Of course, peasant paradise ( Raya (raaya, reaya) is the general name for the tax-paying population in the Ottoman Empire, “subjects”; subsequently (not earlier than the end of the 18th century), only non-Muslims began to be called paradise.), deprived of any political rights, was in feudal dependence on the sipahi and was subject to feudal exploitation. But this exploitation at first was predominantly fiscal and more or less patriarchal in nature. As long as Sipahi enriched himself mainly through military spoils, he viewed land ownership not as the main, but as an auxiliary source of income. He usually limited himself to collecting rent-taxes and the role of a political overlord and did not interfere in the economic activities of the peasants, who used their land plots as hereditary holdings. With natural forms of farming, such a system provided peasants with the opportunity for a tolerable existence.

However, in its original form, the military system did not operate in Turkey for long. The internal contradictions inherent in it began to appear soon after the first great Turkish conquests. Born in war and for war, this system required continuous or almost continuous warfare 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 assets extracted from the conquered countries were quickly and unproductively wasted. On the other hand, conquests, expanding feudal land ownership and creating for the feudal lords a certain guarantee of unimpeded exploitation of the acquired estates, raised the importance of land ownership in their eyes 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 their estates and the income received from them. At the end of the 16th century. The ban on the concentration of several fiefs in one hand, established by previous laws, ceased to be observed. In the 17th century, especially from the second half, the process of concentration of land ownership intensified. Vast estates began to be created, the owners of which sharply increased feudal duties, introduced arbitrary exactions, and in some cases, though still rare at that time, created lordly cultivation on their own estates, the so-called chiftliks ( Chiftlik (from the Turkish “chift” - pair, meaning a pair of oxen, with the help of which the land is cultivated) 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 18th - beginning of the 19th century, when landowners - Chiftlikchi - began to seize peasant lands en masse; in Serbia, where this process took place in especially violent forms, it received the Slavicized name of veneration.).

The very method of production did not change because of this, but the attitude of the feudal lord towards the peasants, towards land ownership, towards his responsibilities to the state changed. The old exploiter, the sipahi, who had war in the foreground and was most interested in military spoils, was replaced by a new, much more money-hungry feudal landowner, main goal which was to obtain maximum income from the exploitation of peasant labor. New landowners, unlike the old ones, were actually and sometimes formally exempted 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 by distributing vast estates for absolute ownership to dignitaries, provincial pashas, ​​and court favorites. Former military captives sometimes also managed to turn into landowners of a new type, but most often the timariots and loans went bankrupt, and their lands passed to new feudal owners. Directly or indirectly, usurious capital was also included in land ownership. But, while promoting the disintegration of the military-feudal system, he did not create a new, more progressive method of production. As K. Marx noted, “under Asian forms, usury can exist for a very long time, causing nothing other than economic decline and political corruption”; “...it is conservative and only brings the existing mode of production to a more miserable state” ( K. Marx, Capital, vol. III, pp. 611, 623.).

The decomposition and then the crisis of the military-feudal system of land tenure entailed a crisis in the Turkish military-feudal state as a whole. This was not a crisis of the mode of production. Turkish feudalism was then still far from the stage at which the capitalist structure emerges, entering into a struggle with the old forms of production and the old political superstructure. Elements of capitalist relations observed during 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 Even weak germs of new forms of production were absent. The disintegration of the Turkish military-feudal system resulted not so much from changes in the method of production, but from those contradictions that were rooted in it itself and developed without going beyond the framework of feudal relations. But thanks to this process, significant changes occurred in the agrarian system of Turkey and shifts within the feudal class. Ultimately, it was the disintegration of the military-feudal system that caused the decline of the Turkish military power, which, due to the specifically military nature of the Ottoman state, was decisive for its entire further development.

Decline in Turkish military power. Defeat at Vienna and its consequences

By the middle of the 17th century. The crisis of the military-feudal system of land tenure has gone far. Its consequences were manifested in the strengthening of feudal oppression (as evidenced by numerous cases of peasant uprisings, as well as the mass exodus of peasants to the cities and even outside the empire), and in the reduction in the number of the Sipahi army (under Suleiman the Magnificent it numbered 200 thousand people, and by the end of the 17th century - only 20 thousand), and in the disintegration of both this army and the Janissaries, and in the further collapse of the government apparatus, and in the growth of financial difficulties.

Some Turkish statesmen tried to delay this process. The most prominent among them were the great viziers from the Köprülü family, who carried out their activities 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 tax system. However, all these measures led to only partial and short-term improvements.

Türkiye was also weakening relatively - in comparison with its main military opponents, the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. In most of these countries, although feudalism still dominated them, new productive forces gradually grew and the capitalist structure developed. There were no prerequisites for this in Turkey. Already after the great geographical discoveries, when the process of primitive accumulation was taking place in advanced European countries, Turkey found itself on the sidelines economic development Europe. Further, nations were formed in Europe and nation states, either single-national or multinational, but in this case, 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 were increasingly lagging behind in socio-economic, and therefore in national development, from many of the peoples under their control, especially the Balkans.

Unfavorable for Turkey in the middle of the 17th century. The international situation in Europe has also developed. The Peace of Westphalia raised the importance of France and reduced its interest in receiving help 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, trying to take Eastern Hungary from them. Finally, an important change in the balance of power in Eastern Europe occurred as a result of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. Turkish aggression now met much more powerful resistance in Ukraine. Polish-Turkish contradictions also deepened.

The military weakening of Turkey and its growing lag behind European states soon affected the course of military operations in Europe. In 1664, a large Turkish army suffered a heavy defeat at Saint Gotthard (Western Hungary) from the Austrians and Hungarians, who were joined this time by a detachment of French. True, this defeat has not yet stopped 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 itself, and in 1683, Turkey, taking advantage of the struggle of 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.

At first, the campaign developed successfully for the Turks. A huge army of more than a hundred thousand, led by the Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa, defeated the Austrians on the territory of 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 Vienna. The rich and nobles began to flee behind them until the Turks closed the siege ring. Those who remained to defend the capital were mainly artisans, students and peasants who came from the suburbs burned by the Turks. The garrison troops numbered only 10 thousand people and had an insignificant amount of guns and ammunition. The city's defenders weakened every day, and famine soon 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. Near Vienna, Saxon troops also joined Jan Sobieski.

The next morning there was a battle that ended in the complete defeat of the Turks. Turkish troops left 20 thousand dead, all the artillery and convoys on the battlefield. The surviving Turkish units rolled back to Buda and Pest, losing another 10 thousand people when 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 of the decline of the Turkish military-feudal state that had begun long before this. Regarding this event, K. Marx wrote: “... There is absolutely no reason to believe that the decline of Turkey began from the moment when Sobieski provided assistance to the Austrian capital. Hammer's research (Austrian historian of Turkey - Ed.) irrefutably proves that the organization of the Turkish Empire was then in a state of disintegration, and that already some time before this, the era of Ottoman power and greatness was quickly coming to an end" ( K. Marx, Reorganization of the English War Department. - Austrian demands. - Economic situation in England. - Saint-Arnaud, K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch, vol. 10. 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 Turkey, the “Holy League” was formed, consisting of Austria, Poland, Venice, and from 1686, Russia. Poland's military actions were unsuccessful, but Austrian troops in 1687-1688. occupied Eastern Hungary, Slavonia, Banat, captured Belgrade and began to move deeper into Serbia. The actions of the Serbian volunteer army opposing the Turks, as well as the Bulgarian uprising that broke out in 1688 in Chiprovets, created a serious threat to Turkish communications. A series of defeats were inflicted on the Turks by Venice, which captured the Morea and Athens.

In the difficult international situation of the 90s of the 17th century, when Austrian forces were distracted by the war with France (the War of the League of Augsburg), the military actions of the Holy League against the Turks became protracted. Nevertheless, Türkiye continued to suffer setbacks. They played an important role in the military events of this period Azov campaigns Peter I in 1695-1696, which facilitated the task of the Austrian command in the Balkans. In 1697, the Austrians completely defeated a large Turkish army near the city of Zenta (Senta) on the Tisza and invaded Bosnia.

Turkey was greatly assisted by English and Dutch diplomacy, through whose mediation peace negotiations opened in Karlovice (Srem) in October 1698. The international situation was generally favorable to Turkey: Austria entered into separate negotiations with it in order to ensure its interests and avoid supporting 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 mediating 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 Karlowitz 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 (province of Temesvar) with fortresses was returned to the Sultan. The peace treaty with Poland deprived the Sultan of the last remaining part of Right Bank Ukraine and Podolia with the Kamenetz fortress. The Turks ceded part of Dalmatia and the Morea to Venice. Russia, abandoned by its allies, was forced to sign not a peace treaty with the Turks in Karlovitsy, but only a truce 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 assigned Azov and the surrounding lands to Russia and canceled Russia’s payment of the annual “dacha” to the Crimean Khan.

Rise 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; capture of the Seas and a number of Aegean islands from the Venetians in the war of 1715-1718. etc. But these successes, explained by opportunistic changes in the international situation and the fierce struggle between European powers (the Northern War, the War of the Spanish Succession), were fleeting.

War of 1716-1718 with Austria brought Turkey new territorial losses in the Balkans, fixed in the Pozarevac (Passarovic) Treaty. A few years later, according to the 1724 treaty with Russia, Turkey was forced to renounce its claims to the Caspian regions of Iran and Transcaucasia. At the end of the 20s, 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 foreign as to the internal policies of the Turkish government. Despite the fact that the Janissaries actively participated in the uprising, its main driving force were artisans, small traders, and the urban poor.

Istanbul even then was a huge, multilingual and multitribal city. Its population probably exceeded 600 thousand people. In the first third of the 18th century. it further increased significantly due to the massive influx of peasants. This was partly caused by what was then happening in Istanbul, in the Balkan cities, as well as in the main centers of Levantine trade (Thessaloniki, Izmir, Beirut, Cairo, Alexandria) and the well-known growth of handicrafts and the emergence of manufacturing production. Turkish sources of this period contain information about the creation of paper, cloth and some other manufactories in Istanbul; attempts were made to build a faience manufactory at the Sultan's palace; Old enterprises expanded and new ones emerged 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 an attractive force for the newcomer working population, especially since the capital's artisans enjoyed many privileges and tax breaks. However, the vast 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 and introduce new duties on handicraft products. Food prices have increased so much that the authorities, fearing unrest, were even forced to distribute free bread in mosques several times. The increased activity of usurious capital, which increasingly subordinated handicraft and small-scale production to its control, had a heavy impact on the working masses of the capital.

Beginning of the 18th century was marked by the widespread spread of European fashion in Turkey, especially in the capital. The Sultan and the nobles competed in inventing amusements, organizing festivals and feasts, and 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 luxurious Sultan’s palace of Saadabad and about 200 kiosks (“kiosks”, small palaces) of the court nobility were built. Turkish nobles were especially sophisticated in growing tulips, decorating their gardens and parks with them. The passion for tulips manifested itself in both architecture and painting. A special “tulip style” emerged. This time went down in Turkish history as the “tulip period” (“lyale devri”).

The luxurious life of the feudal nobility contrasted sharply with the growing poverty of the masses, increasing their discontent. The government did not take this into account. Sultan Ahmed III (1703-1730), a selfish and insignificant man, cared only about money and pleasure. The actual ruler of the state was the great vizier Ibrahim Pasha Nevshehirli, who bore the title of Damada (son-in-law of the Sultan). He was a major statesman. Taking the post of Grand Vizier in 1718, after signing an unfavorable 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 predation and wastefulness of the nobility, and he himself was a stranger to corruption.

Tension in the Turkish capital reached its highest point in the summer and autumn of 1730, when, on top of everything else, the Janissaries' dissatisfaction with the government's apparent inability to defend the Turkish conquests in Iran was added. At the beginning of August 1730, the Sultan and the Grand Vizier set out at the head of an army from the capital, supposedly on a campaign against the Iranians, but, having crossed to the Asian shore of the Bosphorus, they moved no further and began secret negotiations with Iranian representatives. Having learned about this, the capital's Janissaries called on the population 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 classes, a former small trader, later a sailor and janissary Patrona-Khalil, an Albanian by origin, who gained great popularity among the masses with his courage and unselfishness. The events of 1730 were therefore included in historical literature under the name “Patron-Khalil uprising.”

Already on the first day, the rebels destroyed the palaces and keshki of the court nobility and demanded that the Sultan hand over to them the Grand Vizier and four other high dignitaries. Hoping to save his throne and life, Ahmed III ordered the death of Ibrahim Pasha and the handing over of his corpse. Nevertheless, the very next day, Ahmed III, at the request of the rebels, had to abdicate the throne 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) initially showed full agreement with Patron-Khalil. The Sultan ordered the destruction of the Saadabad Palace, abolished a number of taxes introduced under his predecessor, and, at the direction of Patron Khalil, made some changes in the government and administration. Patrona-Khalil did not occupy a government post. He did not take advantage of his position to enrich himself. He even came to Divan meetings 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 for reprisals against the leaders of the uprising. On November 25, 1730, Patrona-Khalil and his closest assistants were invited to the Sultan’s palace, allegedly for negotiations, and were treacherously killed.

The Sultan's government returned entirely to the old methods of governance. This caused a new uprising in March 1731. It was less powerful than the previous one, and in it the masses played a smaller role. The government suppressed it relatively quickly, but unrest continued until the end of April. Only after numerous executions, arrests and the expulsion of several thousand Janissaries from the capital did the government take control of the situation.

Strengthening the influence of Western powers on Turkey. The emergence of the Eastern Question

The Turkish ruling class still saw its salvation in wars. Turkey's main military opponents 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 advanced to the Black Sea coast, as well as due to the growth of national liberation movements of the oppressed peoples of the Ottoman Empire, who saw their ally in the Russian people.

The Turkish ruling circles took a particularly hostile position towards Russia, which they considered the main culprit of the unrest of Balkan Christians and, in general, almost all the difficulties of the Sublime Porte ( Brilliant, or Sublime Porte-Sultan government.). Therefore, the contradictions between Russia and Turkey in the second half of the 18th century. increasingly led to armed conflicts. France and England took advantage of all this, strengthening their influence on the Sultan’s government at that time. Of all the European powers, they had the most serious trading interests in Turkey; the French owned rich trading posts in the ports of the Levant. On the embankments of Beirut or Izmir one could more often hear French spoken than Turkish. By the end of the 18th century. France's trade turnover with the Ottoman Empire reached 50-70 million livres per year, which exceeded the turnover of all other European powers combined. The British also had a significant economic position 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, busy with 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 for them from the point of view of their commercial expansion. No other power and no other government that would have replaced Turkish rule would have created such wide opportunities for unhindered trade for foreign merchants, would have placed them in such favorable conditions in comparison with their own subjects. This resulted in the openly hostile attitude of France and England towards the liberation movements of the oppressed peoples of the Ottoman Empire; this also largely explained their opposition to Russia’s advance to the shores of the Black Sea and the Balkans.

France and England alternately, and in other cases 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 further from Turkey's defeats in the wars with Russia by forcing the Turkish government to grant them new trade benefits.

During the Russian-Turkish War of 1735-1739, which arose largely thanks to the machinations of French diplomacy, the Turkish army suffered a severe defeat near 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 a new capitulation in 1740, 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. Moreover, in contrast to 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, the capitulation privileges (which soon extended to the subjects of other European powers) were permanently secured as an international obligation of Turkey.

The Russian-Turkish War of 1768-1774, the reason for which was the question of replacing the Polish throne, also owed much 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 dire consequences for Turkey.

A striking example of the selfish use of Turkey by European powers was the policy of Austria at this 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, even refusing diplomatic support from Turkey. Nevertheless, she not only kept the money she received from Turkey, but also took Bukovina from her in 1775 under the guise of the “remainder” of compensation.

The Kuchuk-Kaynardzhi Peace Treaty of 1774, which ended the Russian-Turkish war, marked a 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; Türkiye had to pay Russia a large indemnity. But the significance of the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi peace was not only 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 division 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 Kuchuk-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 domination 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, was now faced not so much with Turkey itself, but with the main European powers, who also put forward their claims to the “Ottoman legacy” and openly interfered both in Russian-Turkish relations and into the relationship between the Sultan and his Christian subjects.

From this time on, the so-called Eastern Question began to exist, 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 this time the initiative for the break belonged to Turkey, which acted under the influence of British diplomacy, which was trying to create a Turkish-Swedish-Prussian coalition against Russia.

The alliance with Sweden and Prussia brought little benefit to the Turks. Russian troops under the command of Suvorov defeated the Turks at Focsani, Rymnik and Izmail. Austria took the side of Russia. Only due 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, was Turkey able to end the war with relatively small losses. The Peace of Sistova in 1791 with Austria was concluded on the basis of the status quo (the situation that existed before the war), and according to the Peace of Jassy 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 Kuban into Russia, renounced claims to Georgia, confirmed the Russian protectorate over Moldova and Wallachia and other conditions of the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi Treaty.

The French Revolution, having caused international complications in Europe, created a situation favorable for Turkey, which contributed to delaying the elimination of Turkish domination in the Balkans. But the process of collapse of the Ottoman Empire continued. The Eastern question became even more aggravated due to the growth of national self-awareness of the Balkan peoples. The contradictions between the European powers also deepened, putting 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 the further weakening of Turkey and the transformation her into a country dependent on the European powers.

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 affected all sectors of its economy, armed forces, and 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, duties and duties. The severity of the tax burden was aggravated by the tax farming system. High dignitaries spoke at government auctions, with whom no one dared to compete. Therefore, they received the ransom for a low fee. Sometimes the ransom was granted for lifelong use. The original tax farmer usually sold the farm-out at a large premium to the moneylender, who resold it again until the right to farm out fell into the hands of the immediate tax collector, who reimbursed and covered his costs by shamelessly robbing the peasants.

Tithe was collected in kind from all types of grain, garden crops, fish catch, etc. In fact, it reached a third and 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 corvée work. It was useless to complain, since the wali (governor-general) and other senior officials were themselves the largest landowners. If complaints sometimes reached the capital and an official was sent from there to investigate, then the pashas and beys got off with a bribe, and the peasants bore additional burdens of feeding and maintaining the auditor.

Christian peasants were subjected to double oppression. The personal tax on non-Muslims - jizya, now also called kharaj, sharply increased in size and was levied on everyone, even infants. 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 or wear the same clothes and shoes as Muslims; the Muslim court did not recognize the testimony of “infidels”; Even in official documents, contemptuous and abusive nicknames were used towards non-Muslims.

Turkish agriculture was being destroyed every year. In many areas, entire villages were left without inhabitants. The Sultan's decree in 1781 directly recognized that “the poor subjects are scattering, 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, led to the desolation of entire villages. The farmer has no incentive to expand production: “he sows exactly as much as he needs 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 proper. Crowds of destitute, homeless peasants roamed across Anatolia and Rumelia. Sometimes they formed armed detachments and attacked the estates of feudal lords. There were unrest in the cities as well. In 1767, the Kars Pasha was killed. Troops were sent from Van to pacify the population. At the same time, there was an uprising in Aydin, where residents killed a tax farmer. In 1782, the Russian ambassador reported to St. Petersburg that “confusion in various Anatolian regions is making the clergy and ministry more and more worried and despondent day by day.”

Attempts by individual peasants - both non-Muslims and Muslims - to quit farming were suppressed by legislative and administrative measures. A special tax was introduced for abandoning agriculture, which strengthened the attachment of peasants to the land. In addition, the feudal lord and the moneylender kept the peasants in unpayable debt. The feudal lord had the right to forcibly return the departed peasant and force him to pay taxes for the entire time of absence.

The situation in the cities was still 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 cities.

Turkish crafts during this period were not yet suppressed by the competition of European industry. Still famous at home and abroad were the satin and velvet of Brus, the shawls of Ankara, the long-wool fabrics of Izmir, the soap and rose oil of Edirne, Anatolian carpets, and especially the works of Istanbul artisans: dyed and embroidered fabrics, mother-of-pearl inlays, silver and ivory items , carved weapons, etc.

But the economy of the Turkish city also showed signs of decline. Unsuccessful wars and territorial losses of the empire reduced the already limited demand for Turkish handicrafts and manufactures. Medieval workshops (esnafs) slowed down the development of commodity production. The position of the craft was also affected by the corrupting 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. Without a gedik it was impossible to even take up the profession of a boatman, peddler, or street singer. By lending money to artisans to purchase gediks, moneylenders made the workshops enslavingly dependent on themselves.

The development of crafts and trade was also hampered 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. The insecurity of property killed artisans and merchants from any desire to expand their activities.

The government's destruction of the coin had catastrophic consequences. The Hungarian Baron de Tott, who was in the service of the Turks as a military expert, wrote in his memoirs: “The coin is damaged to such an extent that counterfeiters are now working in Turkey for the benefit of the population: no matter what the alloy they use, the coin is still minted by the Grand Seigneur. 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 ruin of the people. The government restored mosques, palaces, and Janissary barracks, but did not provide assistance to the population. Many moved to the position of house slaves or joined the ranks of the lumpenproletariat along with the peasants who fled from the villages.

Against the gloomy background of popular ruin and poverty, the wastefulness of the upper classes stood out even more clearly. Huge sums were spent on maintaining the Sultan's court. Titled persons, wives and concubines of the Sultan, servants, pashas, ​​eunuchs, and guards totaled more than 12 thousand people. The palace, especially its female half (harem), was the center of intrigue and secret conspiracies. Court favorites, sultanas and among them the most influential - the sultana-mother (valide sultan) received bribes from dignitaries seeking lucrative positions, from provincial pashas who sought to conceal the taxes they received, from foreign ambassadors. One of the highest places in the palace hierarchy was occupied by the chief of the black eunuchs - kyzlar-agasy (literally - the chief of the girls). He was in charge not only of the harem, but also of the personal treasury of the Sultan, the waqfs of Mecca and Medina, and a number of other sources of income and enjoyed great actual power. Kyzlar-agasy Beshir had a decisive influence on state affairs for 30 years, until the mid-18th century. Formerly 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 this, the leaders of the black eunuchs became more careful and tried not to openly interfere in government affairs. Nevertheless, they retained their secret influence.

Corruption in the ruling circles of Turkey was caused, in addition to deep reasons of social order, also by the obvious degeneration that befell the Osman dynasty. Sultans have long ceased to be commanders. They had no experience in government, since before their 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 to the throne (which could not have happened very soon, since succession to the throne in Turkey did not proceed in a straight line, but according to seniority in the dynasty), the crown prince, for the most part, was a morally and physically degenerate person. This was, for example, Sultan Abdul Hamid I (1774-1789), who spent 38 years imprisoned in the palace before ascending the throne. The great viziers (sadrasams), as a rule, were also insignificant and ignorant people who received appointments through bribes and bribes. In the past, this position was often occupied by capable statesmen. They were like this, for example, in the 16th century. the famous Mehmed Sokollu, in the 17th century. - Köprülü family, at the beginning of the 18th century. - Damad Ibrahim Pasha. Even in the middle of the 18th century. The post of Sadrazam was occupied by a major statesman, Raghib Pasha. But after the death of Raghib Pasha in 1763, the feudal clique no longer allowed any strong and independent personality to come to power. In rare cases, grand viziers remained in office for two or three years; for the most part they were replaced several times a year. Almost always, resignation was immediately followed by execution. Therefore, the great viziers rushed to use a few days of their lives and their power to loot as much as possible and just as quickly squander the loot.

Many positions in the empire were officially sold. For the position of ruler of Moldavia or Wallachia, it was necessary to pay 5-6 million piastres, not counting offerings to the Sultan and bribes. Bribery became so firmly established in the habits of the Turkish administration that in the 17th century. There was even a special “bribe accounting” at the Ministry of Finance, 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 qadis (judges) were also sold. In order to reimburse the money paid, the qadis had the right to charge a certain percentage (up to 10%) of the amount of the claim, and this amount was paid not by the loser, but by the winner of the lawsuit, which encouraged the filing of obviously unfair claims. In criminal cases, bribery of judges was openly practiced.

The peasantry especially suffered from judges. Contemporaries noted that “the primary concern of the village residents is to hide 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 great depths. The Janissaries became the main stronghold of reaction. They opposed any reforms. Janissary revolts became a common occurrence, and since the Sultan had no other military support other than the Janissaries, he tried in every possible way to appease them. Upon ascending the throne, the Sultan paid them the traditional reward - “julus bakhshishi” (“gift of accession”). The size of the reward increased if the Janissaries took part in the coup that led to the change of the Sultan. Entertainment and theatrical performances were organized for the Janissaries. A delay in the payment of salaries to the Janissaries could cost the minister his life. Once, on the day of Bayram (a Muslim holiday), the master of ceremonies of the court mistakenly allowed the chiefs of the artillery and cavalry corps to kiss the Sultan's robe earlier than the Janissary aga; The Sultan immediately ordered the execution of the master of ceremonies.

In the provinces, the Janissaries often subjugated the pashas, ​​held all administration in their hands, and arbitrarily collected taxes and various levies from artisans and merchants. The 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 given upon presentation of special tickets (esame), these tickets became the subject of purchase and sale; a large number of them were in the hands of moneylenders and court favorites.

Discipline has sharply declined in other military units. The number of Sipahi cavalry decreased 10 times over the course of 100 years, from the end of the 17th to the end of the 18th century: with difficulty it was possible to gather 2 thousand horsemen for the war with Russia in 1787. The feudal sipahi were always the first to flee the battlefield.

Embezzlement reigned among the military command. Half of the money intended for the active army or for the fortress garrisons was stolen in the capital, and the lion's share of the rest was appropriated by local commanders.

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 - the entire 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 weapons of different calibers. The European armies were trained in the art of maneuver, but 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 Chesme defeat in 1770.

The weakening of central power and the collapse of the government apparatus and army contributed to the growth of centrifugal tendencies in the Ottoman Empire. The struggle against Turkish rule was constantly waged in the Balkans, Arab countries, the Caucasus and 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 these were well-born feudal lords from old families of military captives, sometimes representatives of the new feudal nobility, sometimes just successful adventurers who managed to plunder wealth and recruit their own mercenary army. They left the subordination of the Sultan and actually turned 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 maintain the appearance of Sultan sovereignty.

Ali Pasha of Tepelena rose to prominence in Epirus and Southern Albania, who later gained great fame under the name Ali Pasha of Yanin. On the Danube, in Vidin, the Bosnian feudal lord Omer Pazvand-oglu recruited an entire army and became the de facto master of the Vidin district. The government managed to capture him and execute him, but soon his son Osman Pazvand-oglu opposed the central government even more decisively. Even in Anatolia, where the feudal lords had not yet openly rebelled against the Sultan, real feudal principalities had formed: the feudal family of Karaosman-oglu owned lands in the southwest and west, between Greater Menderes and the Sea of ​​Marmara; the Chapan-oglu clan - in the center, in the area of ​​​​Ankara and Yozgad; the Battal Pasha clan is in the northeast, in the area of ​​Samsun and Trabzon (Trapezunt). These feudal lords had their own troops, distributed land grants, and collected taxes. The Sultan's officials did not dare to interfere with their actions.

Pashas appointed by the Sultan himself also showed separatist tendencies. The government tried to combat the separatism of the pashas by frequently moving them, two to three times a year, from one province to another. But even if the order was carried out, the result was only a sharp increase in extortions from the population, since the pasha sought more short term reimburse your expenses for purchasing a position, bribes and travel. However, over time, this method also ceased to produce results, since the pashas began to raise their own mercenary armies.

Decline of culture

Turkish culture, which reached its peak in the 15th-16th centuries, began already from the end of the 16th century. is gradually declining. The poets' pursuit of excessive sophistication and pretentiousness of form leads to the impoverishment of the content of their works. The technique of versification and play on words begin to be valued higher than the thoughts and feelings expressed in the verse. One of the last representatives of the degenerating palace poetry was Ahmed Nedim (1681-1730), a talented and brilliant exponent of the “era of tulips”. Nedim’s creativity was limited to a narrow circle of palace themes - glorification of the Sultan, court feasts, pleasure walks, “conversations over halva” in the Saadabad Palace and the keshki of aristocrats, but his works were distinguished by great expressiveness, spontaneity, and comparative simplicity of language. In addition to the divan (collection of poems), Nedim left behind a translation into Turkish collection “Pages of News” (“Sahaif-ul-akhbar”), better known as “The History of the Chief Astrologer” (“Munejim-bashi Tarihi”).

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 sharp criticism of modern mores. The symbolic poem of Sheikh Talib (1757-1798) “Beauty and Love” (“Hüsn-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 Asim, Ahmed Resmi and other court historiographers, following a long tradition, described in an apologetic spirit the life and activities of the sultans, military campaigns, etc. Information about foreign countries was contained in reports on Turkish embassies sent for border (Sefaret-nameh). Along with some correct observations, there was a lot of naive and simply fictitious things in them.

In 1727, Turkey's first printing house 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 Vankuli, the historical works of Katib Chelebi (Haji Khalife), Omer Efendi. After the death of Ibrahim Agha, the printing house was inactive for almost 40 years. In 1784 it resumed its work, but even then it published a very limited number of books. The printing of the Koran was prohibited. Works of secular content were also copied mostly 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 in 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 amounted to blind borrowing. This was the case, for example, with architecture, which followed the path of imitation of Europe. French decorators introduced a distorted baroque style to Istanbul, and Turkish builders mixed all styles and constructed ugly buildings. Nothing remarkable was created in painting either, where the strict proportions of geometric patterns were violated, now replaced, under the influence of European fashion, by floral patterns with a predominance of tulips.

But if the culture of the ruling class experienced a period of decline and stagnation, then folk art continued to develop steadily. Folk poets and singers enjoyed great love among the masses, reflecting in their songs and poems the freedom-loving people's dreams and aspirations, hatred of the oppressors. Folk storytellers (hikyaeciler or meddakhi), as well as the folk shadow theater "karagoz", the performances of which were distinguished by their acute topicality, became widely popular. 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 decomposition of the military-feudal 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, Greeks, Albanians, Moldovans and Wallachians, who were under Turkish rule. The formation of chiftliks and the desire of Turkish feudal lords to increase the profitability of their lands increasingly worsened the situation of the peasantry. The distribution of land that had previously belonged to the state into private ownership in the mountain and forest regions of the Balkans 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 exactions in kind and money, the spahii (sipahi) forced the peasants to perform corvée. The transfer of spahiluks (Turkish - sipahilik, possession of sipahi) to the moneylenders, who mercilessly robbed the peasants, became widespread. Arbitrariness, bribery and arbitrariness of local authorities, qadi judges, and tax collectors grew as the central government weakened. The Janissary troops became one of the main sources of rebellion and unrest in Turkey's European possessions. The robbery of the civilian population by the Turkish army and especially the Janissaries became 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 serf-dominated dependence of the bulk of the peasantry; only a few wealthy 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 out more taxes prompted the latter to carry out in the 17th century. a policy of complete subordination to the Turkish authorities and feudal lords of a number of mountainous regions and outlying regions of the empire, previously controlled by local Christian authorities. In particular, the rights of rural and urban communities in Greece and Serbia, which enjoyed considerable autonomy, were steadily curtailed. The pressure of the Turkish authorities on the Montenegrin tribes intensified in order to force them to complete submission and regular payment of haracha (kharaja). The Porte sought to turn the Danube principalities into ordinary pashaliks, governed by Turkish officials. The resistance of the strong Moldavian and Wallachian boyars did not allow this event to be carried out, however, interference in the internal affairs of Moldova and Wallachia and the fiscal exploitation of the principalities increased significantly. Taking advantage of the constant struggle between boyar groups in the principalities, the Porte appointed its proteges as Moldavian and Wallachian rulers, removing them every two or three years. At the beginning of the 18th century, fearing a rapprochement between the Danube principalities and Russia, the Turkish government began to appoint Istanbul Phanariot Greeks as rulers ( Phanar is a quarter in Istanbul where the Greek patriarch had his residence; Phanariots - rich and noble Greeks, from among whom came the highest representatives of the church hierarchy and officials of the Turkish administration; The Phanariots were also engaged in large-scale trade and usury operations.), closely associated with the Turkish feudal class and ruling circles.

The aggravation of contradictions within the empire and the growth of social struggle within it led to the growth of religious antagonism between Muslims and Christians. Manifestations of Muslim religious fanaticism and the Porte's discriminatory policy towards 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, the Porte treated the South Slavic clergy with extreme distrust, sought to belittle its political role, and prevent its connections with Russia and other Christian states. But the Phanariot clergy enjoyed the support of the Turks. The Porta condoned the Hellenization of the South Slavic peoples, Moldovans and Vlachs, which the Greek hierarchy and the Phanariots 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 carried out especially actively in Bulgaria and the Danube principalities, but it met strong resistance from the masses .

In Serbia in the 18th century. The highest church positions were also seized by the Greeks, which led to the rapid breakdown of the entire church organization, which had previously played a large role in maintaining national identity and folk traditions. In 1766, the Patriarchate of Constantinople obtained from the Porte the issuance of firmans (Sultan's decrees), which subordinated the autocephalous Patriarchate of Pecs and the Archbishopric of Ohrid to the authority of the Greek Patriarch.

The medieval backwardness of the Ottoman Empire, the economic disunity of the regions, and cruel national and political oppression hampered the economic progress of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula enslaved by Turkey. But, despite unfavorable conditions, in a number of regions of the European part of Turkey in the 17th-18th centuries. There were noticeable changes in the economy. The development of productive forces and commodity-money relations, however, occurred unevenly: first of all, it was found in some coastal regions, in areas located along large rivers and on international trade routes. Thus, a shipbuilding industry grew in the coastal parts of Greece and on the islands. Textile crafts developed significantly in Bulgaria, serving the needs of the Turkish army and the urban population. In the Danube principalities, enterprises for processing agricultural raw materials, textile, paper and glass manufactories based on serf labor arose.

A characteristic phenomenon of this period was the growth of new cities in some areas of European Turkey. For example, in the foothills of the Balkans, in Bulgaria, in areas remote from Turkish centers, a number of Bulgarian trade and craft settlements arose, serving the local market (Kotel, Sliven, Gabrovo, etc.).

The domestic market in the Balkan possessions of Turkey was poorly developed; the economy of the areas remote from large urban centers and trade routes was still largely subsistence in nature, 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 primary importance in the economy of the countries of the Balkan Peninsula. However, in the 17th century. due to the decline of Dubrovnik and Italian cities, local merchants begin to take a stronger position in trade. The Greek trading and usurious bourgeoisie acquired especially great economic power in Turkey, subordinating the weaker South Slavic merchants to its influence.

Development of trade and trade-usurious capital, with general backwardness public relations among the Balkan peoples, did not yet create the conditions for the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. But the further it went, the more obvious it became that the economy of the Balkan peoples, who were under the yoke of Turkey, was developing independently; that they, living in the most unfavorable conditions, still outstrip the dominant nationality in the state in their social development. All this made the struggle of the Balkan peoples for their national and political liberation inevitable.

The liberation struggle of the Balkan peoples against the Turkish yoke

During the XVII-XVIII centuries. In various parts of the Balkan Peninsula, uprisings against Turkish rule broke out more than once. These movements were usually local in nature, did not arise simultaneously, and were not sufficiently prepared. They were mercilessly suppressed by Turkish troops. But time passed, the failures were forgotten, hopes for liberation were revived with renewed vigor, and with them new uprisings arose.

The main driving force in the uprisings was the peasantry. Often the urban population, the clergy, even the surviving Christian feudal lords in some regions, and in Serbia and Montenegro - local Christian authorities (princes, governors and tribal leaders) took part in them. In the Danube principalities, the struggle with Turkey was usually led by the boyars, who hoped, with the help of neighboring states, to free themselves from Turkish dependence.

The liberation movement of the Balkan peoples assumed especially wide dimensions during the war of the Holy League with Turkey. The successes of the Venetian and Austrian troops, the joining of the anti-Turkish coalition of Russia, with which the Balkan peoples were bound by unity of religion - all this inspired the enslaved Balkan peoples to fight for their liberation. In the first years of the war, preparations began for an uprising against the Turks in Wallachia. Hospodar Shcherban Cantacuzino conducted secret negotiations on an alliance with Austria. He even recruited an army hidden in the forests and mountains of Wallachia to move at the first signal of 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 John 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 move south, a strong anti-Turkish movement began in Serbia, Western Bulgaria, and Macedonia. The local population joined the advancing Austrian troops, and volunteer couples (partisan detachments) began to spontaneously form, which successfully conducted independent military operations.

At the end of 1688, an uprising against the Turks arose in the center of ore mining in the northwestern part of Bulgaria - the city of Chiprovts. Its participants were the craft and trade 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 expel the Turks. But the Austrian army did not arrive in time to help the rebels. The Chiprovets were defeated, and the city of Chiprovets was wiped off the face of the earth.

The Habsburg policy at that time had as its main goal the mastery of lands in the Danube basin, as well as the Adriatic coast. Not having sufficient military forces to implement such broad plans, the emperor hoped to wage war with Turkey using the forces of local rebels. Austrian emissaries called on the Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins to revolt, tried to win over the local Christian authorities (knezov and governor), tribal leaders, baked patriarch Arseniy Chernoevich.

The Habsburgs tried to make Georgiy Brankovich, a Serbian feudal lord who lived in Transylvania, an instrument of this policy. Branković posed as a descendant of the Serbian sovereigns and cherished a plan for the revival of an independent state, including all South Slavic lands. Brankovich presented the project for 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, bestowing on him, as a descendant of Serbian despots, the title of count. In 1688, Georgiy Brankovich was sent to the Austrian command to prepare the population of Serbia against the Turks. However, Branković broke away from submission to the Austrians and tried to independently organize a Serb uprising. Then the Austrians arrested him and kept him in prison until his death.

Hopes for liberation with the help of the Habsburgs ended in grave disappointment for the southern Slavs. After a successful raid deep into Serbia and Macedonia, carried out mainly by Serbian volunteer troops with the assistance of the local population and Haiduks, the Austrians at the end of 1689 began to suffer defeats from Turkish troops. Fleeing from the revenge of the Turks, who destroyed everything in their path, the local population left after the retreating Austrian troops. This “great migration” became widespread. From Serbia at this time, mainly from its southern and southwestern regions, about 60-70 thousand people fled to Austrian possessions. In the subsequent years of the war, Serbian volunteer detachments, under the command of their commander, 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 expected to wage war with the help of the local population. Shkodra Pasha Suleiman Bushatli repeatedly undertook punitive expeditions against Montenegrin tribes. In 1685 and 1692 Turkish troops twice captured the residence of the Montenegrin metropolitans of Cetinje. But the Turks were never able to hold their position in this small mountainous region, which fought a stubborn struggle for complete independence from the Porte.

The specific conditions in which Montenegro found itself after the Turkish conquest, the dominance 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 reign of the talented statesman Metropolitan Danila Petrovich Njegosh (1697-1735) was of great importance. Danila Petrovic fought hard for the complete liberation of Montenegro from the power of the Porte, which did not abandon attempts to restore its position 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 (non-Turkish). 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, Moldovans and Wallachians 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 Turkish possessions in Europe. From the end of the 17th century. The Balkan peoples began to attract increasing attention from Russian diplomacy. The oppressed peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, for their part, have long seen Russia as their patron of the same faith and hoped that the victories of Russian weapons would bring them liberation from the Turkish yoke. Russia's entry into the Holy League prompted representatives of the Balkan peoples to establish direct contact with the Russians. In 1688, the Wallachian ruler Shcherban Cantacuzino, the former Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius and the Serbian Patriarch Arseniy Chernoevich sent letters to the Russian Tsars Ivan and Peter, in which they described the suffering of the Orthodox peoples in Turkey and asked that Russia move its troops to the Balkans to liberate the Christian peoples. Although the operations of 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 acted in the international arena as a defender of the interests of all Orthodox Christians in general subjects of Porta. The Russian autocracy adhered to this position throughout its 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 Russian troops with food. The Moldavian 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, subject to the provision of full internal independence to Moldova. In addition, the Austrian Serbs promised their assistance, large squad which was supposed to connect with Russian troops. Beginning in 1711 with the Prut campaign, the Russian government issued a letter calling to arms all 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 Herzegovinians, having received a letter from Peter I, began to undertake military sabotage against the Turks. This circumstance served as 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 cash 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 Lesser Wallachia came under Habsburg rule. However, the population of these lands, freed from the power of the Turks, fell into no less heavy dependence on the Austrians. Taxes were raised. The Austrians forced their new subjects to convert to Catholicism or Uniateism, 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 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 Peace of Belgrade in 1739, but the Serbian lands remained within 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 become widespread and was quickly suppressed. This unsuccessful war halted Austrian expansion in the Balkans and led to a further decline in Habsburg political influence among the Balkan peoples.

From the middle of the 18th century. the leading role in the fight against Turkey passes to Russia. In 1768, Catherine II entered the war with Turkey and, following the policies of Peter, appealed to the Balkan peoples to rise up against Turkish rule. Successful Russian military actions stirred up the Balkan peoples. The appearance of the Russian fleet off the coast of Greece caused an uprising in Morea and the islands in 1770 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 mid-18th century.

The entry of Russian troops into Moldavia and Wallachia was enthusiastically greeted by the population. From Bucharest and Iasi, delegations of boyars and clergy headed to St. Petersburg, asking to accept the principalities under Russian protection.

The Kuchuk-Kainardzhi peace of 1774 was of great importance for the Balkan peoples. A number of articles of this treaty were devoted to 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 aggressive goals of tsarism, also contributed to the revival 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 domination did not lead to the denationalization of the Balkan peoples. Southern Slavs, Greeks, Albanians, Moldovans and Wallachians have preserved their national languages, culture, and folk traditions; under the conditions of foreign yoke, elements of an economic community developed, although slowly but steadily.

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 a revival of interest in their historical past, in an intensified desire to raise public education, improve the education system in schools, and introduce elements of secular education. The cultural and educational movement began first among the Greeks, the most socio-economically developed people, and then among the Serbs and Bulgarians, Moldovans and Vlachs.

The educational movement had its own characteristics for each Balkan people and did not develop simultaneously. But in all cases its social base 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 inconsistency of the content of national movements. In Greece, for example, where trade and usury 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 from the ruins of Turkey and the subjugation of the remaining peoples of the Balkan Peninsula to the Greeks. These ideas found practical expression in the Hellenizing efforts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Phanariots. At the same time, the ideology of the Greek enlighteners, the development of public education and schooling by the Greeks 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 18th century. stood by the scientists, writers and teachers Eugennos Voulgaris (died 1806) and Nikiforos Theotokis (died 1800), and later the prominent public figure, scientist and publicist Adamantios Korais (1748-1833). His works, imbued with a love of freedom and patriotism, instilled in his compatriots a love for their homeland, freedom, and 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 began in the Serbian lands subject to the Habsburgs. With the active support of the Serbian trade and craft class that had strengthened here in the second quarter of the 18th century. In Banat, Bačka, Baranje, and Srem, schooling, Serbian writing, secular literature, and printing began to develop.

The development of education among the Austrian Serbs at this time occurred under strong Russian influence. At the request of the Serbian Metropolitan, the Russian teacher Maxim Suvorov arrived in Karlovitsy in 1726 to organize school affairs. The Latin School, founded in 1733 in Karlovichi, was headed by Emanuel Kozachinsky, a native of Kyiv. Quite a few Russians and Ukrainians taught in other Serbian schools. The Serbs also received books and textbooks from Russia. The consequence of 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 Jovan Rajic (1726 - 1801). The activity of another famous Serbian writer Zachary Orfelin (1726 - 1785), who wrote the major work “The Life and Glorious Deeds of the 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 Obradović (1742-1811) began his activities. Obradović 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. Obradović's views subsequently received 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 Hilendarsky (1722-1798) completed “Slavic-Bulgarian History” - a journalistic treatise based on historical data, directed primarily against 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 Hilendar was Vrakansky Bishop Sophrony (Stoiko Vladislavov) (1739-1814).

The outstanding Moldavian educator, Hospodar Dimitri Cantemir (1673 - 1723), wrote the satirical novel “Hieroglyphic History”, the philosophical and didactic poem “The Sage’s Dispute with Heaven or the Litigation of the Soul with the Body” and a number of historical works. The development of the culture of the Moldavian people was also greatly influenced by the prominent historian and linguist Enakits Vekerescu (c. 1740 - c. 1800).

The national revival of the Balkan peoples acquired wider scope at the beginning of the next century.

3. Arab countries under Turkish domination

The decline of the Ottoman Empire also affected 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. A broad religious and political movement arose in Arabia - Wahhabism, which set as its goal the complete ousting of the Turks from the Arabian Peninsula.

Egypt

In the XVII-XVIII centuries. Some new phenomena are observed in the economic development of Egypt. Peasant farming is increasingly being drawn into market relations. In a number of areas, especially in the Nile Delta, rent-tax takes the form of money. Foreign travelers of the late 18th century. describe lively trade in the city markets of Egypt, where peasants delivered grain, vegetables, livestock, wool, cheese, butter, homemade yarn and bought fabrics, clothes, utensils, and metal products in return. Trade was also carried out directly at village markets. Trade relations between different regions of the country have achieved significant development. According to contemporaries, in the middle of the 18th century. from the southern regions of Egypt, ships carrying grain, sugar, beans, linen fabrics and linseed oil went down the Nile, to Cairo and to the delta region; in the opposite direction there were cargoes of cloth, soap, rice, iron, copper, lead, and salt.

Foreign trade relations have also grown significantly. In the XVII-XVIII centuries. Egypt exported cotton and linen fabrics, leather, sugar, ammonia, as well as rice and wheat to European countries. Lively trade was carried out with neighboring countries - Syria, Arabia, the 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 18th century in a number of industries, especially in export industries, the transition to manufacturing began. Manufacture enterprises producing silk, cotton and linen fabrics were founded in Cairo, Mahalla Kubra, Rosetta, Kusa, Kina and other cities. Each of these manufactories employed hundreds of hired workers; at the largest of them, in Mahalla-Kubra, from 800 to 1000 people were constantly employed. Wage labor was used in oil mills, sugar mills and other factories. Sometimes feudal lords, in company with sugar producers, founded enterprises on their estates. Often the owners of manufactories, large craft workshops and shops were representatives of the highest clergy and waqf administrators.

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. Wage labor began to be used in agriculture: thousands of peasants were hired for field work on neighboring large estates.

However, under the conditions then existing in Egypt, the sprouts of capitalist relations could not receive significant development. As in other parts of the Ottoman Empire, the property of merchants, owners of manufactories and workshops was not protected from encroachment by pashas and beys. Excessive taxes, levies, indemnities, and extortion ruined merchants and artisans. The regime of capitulations forced local merchants out of more profitable branches of trade, ensuring the monopoly of European merchants and their agents. In addition, due to the systematic robbery of the peasantry, the domestic market was extremely unstable and narrow.

Along with the development of trade, feudal exploitation of the peasantry grew steadily. New ones were constantly added to the old duties and taxes. The multazims (landlords) levied taxes on the fellahs (peasants) to pay tribute to the Porte, taxes for the maintenance of the army, provincial authorities, village administration and religious institutions, taxes for their own needs, as well as many other taxes, sometimes levied without any reason. A list of taxes collected from the peasants of one of the Egyptian villages, published by a French explorer of the 18th century. Esteve, contained over 70 titles. In addition to taxes established by law, all kinds of additional levies based on custom were widely used. “It is enough for the amount to be collected 2-3 years in a row,” wrote Esteve, “for it to then be demanded on the basis of customary law.”

Feudal oppression increasingly caused uprisings against Mamluk rule. In the middle of the 18th century. The Mamluk feudal lords were expelled from Upper Egypt by the Bedouins, whose uprising was suppressed only in 1769. Soon a large fellah uprising 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 Porte, the power of the Turkish pashas sent from Istanbul was illusory. In 1769, during the Russian-Turkish War, the Mamluk ruler Ali Bey declared the independence of Egypt. Having received some support from the commander of the Russian fleet in the Aegean Sea, A. Orlov, he initially 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. Mamluk power was overthrown.

Syria and Lebanon

Sources of the XVII-XVIII centuries. contain scant information about the economic development of Syria and Lebanon. There is no data on internal trade, on manufactories, or 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 increased specialization of regions. There is also no doubt that in Syria and Lebanon, as in Egypt, the extent of feudal exploitation increased, the struggle within the feudal class 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 Kaysits (or “reds”, as they called themselves) and the Yemenites (or “whites”). The first of these groups, led by emirs from the Maan clan, opposed Turkish rule and therefore enjoyed the support of the Lebanese peasants; this 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), the Porte handed over the Sultan's firman for the management of 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 the nephew of Fakhr ad-din II, the emir Mel-hem Maan, as the ruler of Lebanon, and the Porte was forced to approve this choice. However, she did not give up attempts to remove the Kaisites from power and put her supporters at the head of the Lebanese Principality.

In 1660, the troops of the Damascus Pasha Ahmed Köprülü (son of the Grand Vizier) invaded Lebanon. As the Arab chronicle reports, the pretext for this military expedition was the fact that the vassals and allies of the Maans, the emirs of Shihab, “incited the Damascenes against the pasha.” Acting together with Yemenite militias, Turkish troops occupied and burned a number of Lebanese mountain villages, including the capital of the Maans - Dayr al-Qamar and the residences of the Shihabs - Rashaya (Rashaya) and Hasbeya (Hasbaya). The Kaissite emirs were forced to retreat together with their squads into the mountains. But popular support eventually ensured their victory over the Turks and Yemenites. In 1667, the Kaissite group returned to power.

In 1671, a new clash between the Kaysites and the troops of the Damascus Pasha led to the occupation and plunder of Rashaya by the Turks. But ultimately, victory again belonged to the Lebanese. Other attempts by the Turkish authorities to place emirs from the Alam ad-Din clan at the head of Lebanon, undertaken in the last quarter of the 17th century, were also unsuccessful.

In 1710, the Turks, together with the Yemenites, again attacked Lebanon. Having overthrown the Kaysite emir Haydar from the Shihab clan (the emir's throne passed to this clan 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 Kaysits. Most of the Yemenites, including the entire family of emirs Alam ad-din, died in this battle. The Kaysit victory was so impressive that the Turkish authorities had to abandon the establishment of the Lebanese Pashalik; 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 away inheritances (muqataa) 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 Kaysites, Sheikh Dagir, gradually rounding out the possessions received by his father from the Lebanese Emir, extended his power to the entire 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 Akka in 1772, by that 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 usual system of monopolies and tax farming in the Ottoman Empire, the conditions for the development of trade and crafts were apparently somewhat better here than in other cities: feudal taxes were strictly fixed, and the life and property of the merchant and artisan were protected from arbitrariness. In Akka there were the ruins of a fortress built by the Crusaders. Dagir restored this fortress and 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. Since 1765, Daghir had to defend himself from three Turkish pashas - Damascus, Tripoli and Saida. At first, the struggle was reduced to episodic clashes, but in 1769, after the outbreak of the Russian-Turkish War, Dagir led 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), and besieged Jaffa. Russia provided significant assistance to the rebel Arabs. Russian warships cruised along the Lebanese coast, shelled Beirut during the Arab assault on its fortress, 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 collapsed. Akka became the residence of the Turkish Pasha Ahmed, nicknamed Jazzar ("Butcher"). But the struggle of the people of Syria and Lebanon against Turkish oppression continued.

During the last quarter of the 18th century. Jazzar continuously increased tribute from the Arab regions under his control. 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 levies, previously unknown to Lebanon, were introduced - a poll tax, taxes on sericulture, and on mills etc. The Turkish authorities again began to openly interfere in the internal affairs of Lebanon; their troops, sent to collect tribute, robbed and burned villages and 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 of Iraq, only Baghdad and Basra have to a certain extent retained the importance of large craft centers; Woolen fabrics, carpets, and leather goods were produced here. But transit trade between Europe and Asia went through the country, bringing in significant income, and this circumstance, as well as the struggle for the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf located in Iraq, made Iraq the object of an acute Turkish-Iranian struggle. Transit trade also attracted English merchants to the country, who in the 17th century. founded the East India Company trading post in Basra, and in the 18th century. - in Baghdad.

The Turkish conquerors divided Iraq into two pashalyks (eyalets): Mosul and Baghdad. In the Mosul Pashalik, populated predominantly by Kurds, there was a military-feudal system. The Kurds - both nomads and settled farmers - still retain the features of tribal life, division into ashirets (clans). But their communal lands and most of the livestock had 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, the Porte's power over the Kurdish feudal lords was very fragile, which was explained by the crisis of the military-feudal system observed in the 17th-18th centuries. throughout the Ottoman Empire. Taking advantage of Turkish-Iranian rivalry, Kurdish feudal lords often avoided fulfilling their military duties, and sometimes openly took the side of 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 hostility between the Kurds and their Arab neighbors and Christian minorities and encouraged strife among the Kurdish feudal lords.

In the Baghdad pashalik, inhabited by Arabs, a tribal uprising broke out in 1651, led by the feudal Siyab family. It led to the expulsion of the Turks from the Basra region. Only in 1669, after repeated military expeditions, did the Turks manage to reinstall their pasha in Basra. But already in 1690, the Arab tribes who had settled in the Euphrates valley rebelled, united in the Muntafik union. The rebels occupied Basra and waged 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 entire 18th century. the country was ruled by pashas from among his descendants or his kulemen ( Kulemen - white slave (usually 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 court in Baghdad based on the Istanbul model, acquired his own army, formed from Janissaries and Kulemen. He became related to the Arab sheikhs, gave them ranks and gifts, took away lands from some tribes and gave them to 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.

New big wave popular uprisings arose in southern Iraq at the end of the 15th century. due to the intensification of feudal exploitation and a sharp increase in the size of tribute. The uprisings were suppressed by the Pasha of Baghdad Suleiman, but they caused serious blow Turkish domination in Iraq.

Arabia. The emergence of Wahhabism

On the Arabian Peninsula, the power 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 held on to the Hijaz: the Turkish sultans attached exceptional importance to their nominal dominance 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 season of Hajj (Muslim pilgrimage), these cities turned into grandiose fairs, centers of lively trade, which brought significant income to the Sultan’s treasury. Therefore, the Porte not only did not impose tribute on the Hijaz, but, on the contrary, obliged the pashas of neighboring Arab countries - Egypt and Syria - to annually send gifts to Mecca for the local spiritual nobility and provide generous subsidies to the leaders of the Hijaz tribes through whose territory the caravans of pilgrims passed. For the same reason, real power within the Hijaz was left to the Meccan spiritual feudal lords - the sheriffs, who had long enjoyed influence over the townspeople and nomadic tribes. The Turkish Pasha of Hijaz was essentially not the ruler of the country, but the Sultan’s representative to the sheriff.

In Eastern Arabia in the 17th century, after the expulsion of the Portuguese from there, an independent state arose in Oman. The Arab merchants of Oman had a significant fleet and, like European merchants, engaged in piracy along with trade. At the end of the 17th century. they took the island of Zanzibar and the adjacent African coast from the Portuguese, and at the beginning of the 18th century. expelled the Iranians from the Bahrain Islands (later, in 1753, the Iranians regained Bahrain). In 1737, under Nadir Shah, the Iranians tried to capture Oman, but the popular uprising that broke out in 1741 ended in their expulsion. The leader of the uprising, the Muscat merchant Ahmed ibn Said, was proclaimed the hereditary imam of Oman. Its capitals were Rastak, a fortress in the mountainous interior of the country, and Muscat, a commercial center on the sea coast. During this period, Oman pursued an independent policy, successfully resisting the penetration of European merchants - the British and French, who tried in vain to obtain permission to establish their trading posts in Muscat.

The coast of the Persian Gulf northwest of Oman was inhabited by independent Arab tribes - Jawasym, Atban and others, who were engaged in maritime industries, mainly pearl fishing, as well as trade and piracy. In the 18th century The Atbans built the Kuwait fortress, which became a significant trade 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. Petty principalities were also founded on the Qatar Peninsula and at various points on the so-called Pirate Coast (today's Trucial Oman).

The inner part of the Arabian Peninsula - Najd - 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, raids by nomads on the settled population of oases and on merchant caravans, feudal strife were accompanied by the destruction of irrigation structures, 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 stop 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 received the name Wahhabism after its founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. This teaching, while entirely 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 captured the Hejaz, Syria, Iraq and other Arab countries.

Similar religious teachings arose among Muslims before. In Najd itself, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab had predecessors. However, his activities went far beyond religious preaching. From the middle of the 18th century. Wahhabism was recognized as the official religion of the principality of Dareya, whose emirs Muhammad ibn Saud (1747-1765) and his son Abd al-Aziz (1765-1803), relying on the alliance of Wahhabi tribes, demanded from other tribes and principalities of Najd under the threat of a “holy war” "and the death of accepting the Wahhabi creed and joining the Saudi state.

For 40 years there were continuous wars in the country. The principalities and tribes, forcibly annexed by the Wahhabis, more than once rebelled and renounced the new faith, but these uprisings were severely suppressed.

The struggle for the unification of Arabia stemmed not only from the objective needs of economic development. The annexation of new territories increased the income and power of the Saudi dynasty, and military spoils enriched the “fighters for a just cause,” with the emir accounting 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, governance 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 hosted Wahhabi preachers.

Subsequently, the Wahhabis went beyond 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 into the Hejaz and Iraq, which opened the way for the further rise of the Wahhabi state.

Arab culture in the XVII-XVIII centuries.

The Turkish conquest led to the decline of Arab culture, which continued during the 17th-18th centuries. Science developed very poorly during this period. Philosophers, historians, geographers, and lawyers mainly expounded and rewrote the works of medieval authors. Medicine, astronomy, and mathematics froze at the level of the Middle Ages. Experimental methods for studying nature were not known. Religious motifs predominated in poetry. Mystical dervish literature was widely distributed.

In Western bourgeois historiography, the decline of Arab culture is usually attributed to the dominance of Islam. In fact, the main reason for the decline was the 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 had no less reactionary influence. The religious disunity of the Arabs, divided into a number of religious groups - especially in Syria and Lebanon, led to cultural disunity. Every cultural movement inevitably took on a religious imprint. In the 17th century A college for 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 Maronite intelligentsia. The educational activities of the Maronite bishop Herman Farhat, who founded at the beginning of the 18th century, were of the same religious nature, limited by the framework of Maronite propaganda. library in Aleppo (Aleppo); The Maronite school, established in the 18th century, had the same features. at the monastery of Ain Barka (Lebanon), and an Arabic printing house founded at this monastery. The main subject of study at school was theology; The printing house printed exclusively books of religious content.

In the 17th century Antioch Patriarch Macarius and his son Paul of Aleppo traveled to Russia and Georgia. The descriptions of this journey, compiled by Pavel of Aleppo, can be compared in the vividness of his observations and in the artistry of his 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 was founded in Istanbul. In Arabic, it published only Muslim religious books - the Koran, hadith, 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 containing original material appeared. In the 17th century the historian al-Makkari created an interesting work on the history of Andalusia; the Damascus judge Ibn Khallikan compiled an extensive body of biographies; in the 18th century The chronicle of the Shihabs was written - the most important source on the history of Lebanon during this period. Other chronicles were created on the history of Arab countries in the 17th-18th centuries, as well as descriptions of travel to Mecca, Istanbul and other places.

The centuries-old art of Arab folk artists continued to manifest itself in remarkable architectural monuments and in arts and crafts. This is evidenced by the Azma Palace in Damascus, built in the 18th century, the remarkable architectural ensembles of the Moroccan capital of Meknes, erected at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, and many monuments of Cairo, Tunisia, Tlemcen, Aleppo and other Arab cultural centers.