Timar

Last updated

A timar was a land grant by the sultans of the Ottoman Empire between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, with an annual tax revenue of less than 20,000 akçes. The revenues produced from the land acted as compensation for military service. A holder of a timar was known as a timariot. If the revenues produced from the timar were from 20,000 to 100,000 akçes, the land grant was called a zeamet , and if they were above 100,000 akçes, the grant would be called a hass . [1] [2]

Contents

Timar system

In the Ottoman Empire, the timar system was one in which the projected revenue of a conquered territory was distributed in the form of temporary land grants among the Sipahis (cavalrymen) and other members of the military class including Janissaries and other servants of the sultan. [3] These prebends were given as compensation for annual military service, for which they received no pay. In rare circumstances women could become timar holders. However, this privilege was restricted to women who were prominent within the imperial family, or high-ranking members of the Ottoman elite. [4] Timars could be small, when they would be granted by governors, or large, which then required a certificate from the Sultan, but generally the fief had an annual tax revenue value of less than 20,000 akçes. [5] This system of land tenure lasted roughly from the fourteenth century through the sixteenth century. The goals of the system were necessitated by financial, state and expansionist purposes. The financial aims of the system were to relieve pressure from the Ottoman state of paying the army as well as to gain a new source of revenue for the central treasury. [6] The expansionist aims were to increase the number of cavalry soldiers and to gradually assimilate and bring conquered countries under direct Ottoman control. [6] [7] The Ottoman state also desired to centralize the sultan’s authority by removing the feudal system and aristocratic elements from dominating the empire. [8]

Power and conditions

Within the Timar system the state gave Timar holders, including the Sipahis, the authority to control of arable lands, vacant lands or land possessed by peasants, wastelands, fruit trees, forests or waters within the Timar territory. [9] The Sipahis employed agents or surrogates called Kethüda , Vekil, or voyvoda to collect revenues and exercise the delegated powers. [10] They had the right to collect certain parts of the tax revenue from arable lands in certain localities in return for service to the state. [11] They were responsible for supervising their Timar territory and the way it was cultivated and possessed by peasants. The Sipahi was rewarded if he procured the settlement of vacant land, but punished if he caused the abandonment of cultivated land. [12] Timar holders had police authority to pursue and arrest wrongdoers within their territories. However, they could not enforce penalties until they received a verdict from a local judge in accordance to imperial law. [9] Their duties were to protect peasants and persons in their territory and to join the imperial army during campaigns. The sultan gave Sipahis vineyards and a meadow for the needs of their families, retainers and horses. [13] One of the main conditions imposed by the state was that a Timar holder did not own the land, as ownership was held by the Ottoman state. [13] Another essential condition was that Timars could not be inherited but it was not uncommon for a Timar to be reassigned to a son provided they performed military service. [12] Holding a Timar was contingent on active military service and if a Sipahi failed to participate in military service for seven years he lost his authority over the land grant. [13] Nevertheless, a Sipahi retained his title and could be eligible for another Timar if he remained in the military class and participated in military campaigns. [13]

Origins

Due to the nature of the documentation of the early history of the Ottomans it is very difficult to assign the Timar system a concrete date. Elements of the Timar system however can be seen to have their origins in Pre-Islamic antiquity (Ancient Middle Eastern Empires, Rome, Byzantium, and pre-Islamic Iran). [14] Pronoia of the late Byzantine era is perhaps the immediate predecessor of the Timar system. However, it was not until the re-emergence of the empire under Mehmed I in 1413 that a tenure system that was distinctly Timar was developed. Before the collapse of the empire by Timur in 1402, Bayezid had granted quasi-Timar holdings to his own servants. With the reunification of the Ottoman lands under a Sultan, these men would once again have legal title to their holdings. Over the next fifty years this system of land tenure was largely expanded and standardized. After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottomans turned once more to the familiar policy of expansion through conquest. [15] With the period of consolidation that followed there was a move towards total annexation and assimilation of the provinces into the Ottoman system. This meant the elimination of local dynasties and replacing them with the Timar system and other apparatuses of provincial administration. [9]

Surveying and distribution

By the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the surveying and distribution of conquered territory among the Sipahi class had become a very complicated and highly bureaucratic process. In the survey, known as the Tapu-tahrirs, all the fiscal information about the territory would be collected and divided into Timar. The process went as follows: 1) appoint administrator ( emin – accompanied by clerk ( katip ) and regional judge kadı ) collected available documentation about land and building ownership and local taxes 2) information is written down and codified in a narrative called ( Kanunname ) that mediated and resolved contradictions especially between those two non-Islamic legal traditions – local and imperial – upon which the Ottomans based their dominion 3) officials consult with local grandees and proceeded from village to village to inspect and evaluate land and other holdings 4) draw up results of the survey in a register prefaced by the Kanunname that listed the names of all the towns, villages and populations, what they produced and expected revenues. [16]

Based on these fiscal projections, the Sultan would distribute the land and villages to the soldiers who had participated in the conquest. Initially the candidates for Timar were recommended individually to the Sultan. Upon receiving this recommendation, the Sultan commanded the provincial governor to award the candidate with Timar in the province. The candidate then, “with the Sultan’s order” ( eli-emirlu ), would go out and find a vacant Timar suitable for him. [17] It has been suggested that there was a regular rotation system so that Timar holders were dismissed after serving a defined period of tenure. This length would vary case to case. As long as the candidate participated regularly in the Sultan’s military campaigns who[ clarification needed ] would be eligible for a Timar grant. This made it so competing groups formed and were motivated to fight for the Sultan’s favouritism and patronage. [17]

Problems and decline

By the time Mehmed II (r. 1451–1481) reigned over the Ottoman Empire the number of candidates eligible for Timar grants had fallen substantially. There was a growing expectation among the Janissary soldiers and other Kuls of the Sultan for these grants in reward for participating in the growing number of campaigns. Furthermore, Timars were being offered to volunteers and members of the pre-Ottoman military class for their loyalty and service to the Sultan. In order to meet this new demand, existing Timars were turned into jointly held unites, or divided into shares. This growing demand also forced the Ottoman Sultan’s to engage in further wars of conquest in neighbouring countries thus creating Timars through new surveys. This however, also increased the number of candidates for Timar grants. The solution to this crisis took two forms: more than one Sipahi holding a single Timar and instead of receiving an entire village, Sipahis were given shares in many villages in order to make up their Timar. These solutions likely had further implications than just meeting the demands of a growing demographic. The Ottoman government had a policy of keeping the registered Timars intact even while the number of Sipahis grew. Furthermore, it prevented Sipahis from gaining complete and independent control over the peasants and land within a territory. [18] The institution of arpalik was introduced to make burden of government officials easier by compensating losses of its high officials. [19] An arpalik was a large estate (i.e. sanjak) entrusted to some holder of senior position, or to some margrave, as a temporary arrangement before they were appointed to some appropriate position. [20] It was a kind of appanage given to increasing number of members of the Ottoman elite for tax farming. [21] Instead to resolving the Porte's problems, the institutions of arpalik introduced new, even bigger ones. [19] The exact duties of the arpalik holders were never precisely defined by the Ottoman government, which caused frequent tensions between the Porte and the provinces. [22] This tensions probably additionally contributed to the decay of the traditional timar system because it left sipahis out of the clear chain of command. [22]

By the end of the sixteenth century the Timar system of land tenure had begun its unrecoverable decline. In 1528, the Timariot constituted the largest single division in the Ottoman army. Sipahis were responsible for their own expenses, including provision during the campaigns, their equipment, providing auxiliary men ( cebelu ) and valets ( gulam ). [23] With the onset of new military technologies, particularly the gun, the Sipahis, who had once made up the backbone of the Ottoman army, were becoming obsolete. The long and costly wars which the Ottoman Sultans waged against the Habsburgs and Iranians had demanded the formation of a modern standing and professional army. Therefore, cash was needed to maintain them. Essentially, the gun was cheaper than a horse. [24] By the early decades of the seventeenth century, much of the Timar revenue was brought into the central treasury as substitute money ( bedel ) for exemption from military service. [25] Since they were no longer needed, when the Timar holders died off, their holdings would not be reassigned, but were brought under imperial domain. Once under direct control the vacant land would be turned into Tax Farms ( muqata'ah ) in order to ensure greater cash revenue for the central government. [26]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sipahi</span> Cavalry, similar to knights

The sipahi were professional cavalrymen deployed by the Seljuk Turks and later by the Ottoman Empire. Sipahi units included the land grant–holding (timar) provincial timarli sipahi, which constituted most of the army, and the salaried regular kapikulu sipahi, or palace troops. However, the irregular light cavalry akıncı ("raiders") were not considered to be sipahi. The sipahi formed their own distinctive social classes and were rivals to the janissaries, the elite infantry corps of the sultans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire</span> Administrative divisions of the state organisation of the Ottoman Empire

The administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire were administrative divisions of the state organisation of the Ottoman Empire. Outside this system were various types of vassal and tributary states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timariots</span> Ottoman cavalry soldiers

Timariot was the name given to a Sipahi cavalryman in the Ottoman army. In return for service, each timariot received a parcel of revenue called a timar, a fief, which were usually recently conquered plots of agricultural land in the countryside. Far less commonly, the sultan would grant a civil servant or member of the imperial family a timar. Also non-military timar holders were obliged to supply the imperial army with soldiers and provisions.

The Celali rebellions were a series of rebellions in Anatolia of irregular troops led by bandit chiefs and provincial officials known as celalî, celâli, or jelālī, against the authority of the Ottoman Empire in the late 16th and early to mid-17th centuries. The first revolt termed as such occurred in 1519, during Sultan Selim I's reign, near Tokat under the leadership of Celâl, an Alevi preacher. Celâl's name was later used by Ottoman histories as a general term for rebellious groups in Anatolia, most of whom bore no particular connection to the original Celâl. As it is used by historians, the "Celali rebellions" refer primarily to the activity of bandits and warlords in Anatolia from c. 1590 to 1610, with a second wave of Celali activity, this time led by rebellious provincial governors rather than bandit chiefs, lasting from 1622 to the suppression of the revolt of Abaza Hasan Pasha in 1659. These rebellions were the largest and longest lasting in the history of the Ottoman Empire.

<i>Beylerbey</i> Title in the medieval and modern Islamic world

Beylerbey was a high rank in the western Islamic world in the late Middle Ages and early modern period, from the Anatolian Seljuks and the Ilkhanids to Safavid Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Initially designating a commander-in-chief, it eventually came to be held by senior provincial governors. In Ottoman usage, where the rank survived the longest, it designated the governors-general of some of the largest and most important provinces, although in later centuries it became devalued into a mere honorific title. The title is originally Turkic and its equivalents in Arabic were amir al-umara, and in Persian, mir-i miran.

Under the Ottoman Empire, Muqata'ah or Mukata'a were hass-ı hümayun, parcels of land owned by the Ottoman crown. These were distributed through the iltizam auction system; rights to collect revenue from the land were sold to the highest bidder, eventually for the life of the buyer. As the Ottoman Empire began to move into the early modern period, vacant timars, instead of being reassigned, were often added to the iltizam system, paving the way for a fundamental change in the Ottoman fiscal system into a monetized system, and allowing various power-brokers to involve themselves in the Ottoman bureaucracy, which had previously been limited to the kul.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Köprülü era</span> c. 1656–1703 Ottoman period dominated by grand viziers of the Köprülü family

The Köprülü era was a period in which the Ottoman Empire's politics were frequently dominated by a series of grand viziers from the Köprülü family. The Köprülü era is sometimes more narrowly defined as the period from 1656 to 1683, as it was during those years that members of the family held the office of grand vizier uninterruptedly, while for the remainder of the period they occupied it only sporadically.

Ziamet was a form of land tenure in the Ottoman Empire, consisting in grant of lands or revenues by the Ottoman Sultan to an individual in compensation for their services, especially military services. The ziamet system was introduced by Osman I, who granted land tenure to his troops. Later, this system was expanded by Murad I for his Sipahi.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chiflik</span> Turkish term for a system of land management in the Ottoman Empire

Chiflik, or chiftlik, is a Turkish term for a system of land management in the Ottoman Empire. Before the chiflik system the Empire used a non-hereditary form of land management called the timar system. As the Empire began to collapse, powerful military officers started to claim land from the sultan's holding allowing them to pass the land onto their sons, thus creating the chiflik system. This form of land management lasted from the 16th century until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1919.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charter of Alliance</span> 1808 Ottoman Empire treaty

The Charter of Alliance also known as Deed of Agreement was a treaty between the grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire and a number of powerful local rulers signed in 1808, in an attempt to regulate their power and relations with the central Ottoman government.

A kadi was an official in the Ottoman Empire. In Arabic, the term qāḍī typically refers to judges who preside over matters in accordance with sharia Islamic law; under Ottoman rule, however, the kadi also became a crucial part of the imperial administration. After Mehmed II codified his Kanun, kadis relied on this dynastic secular law, local customs, and sharia to guide their rulings. Along with adjudicating over criminal and civil matters, the kadi oversaw the administration of religious endowments and was the legal guardian of orphans and others without a guardian. Although Muslims, in particular Muslim men, possessed a higher status in the kadi's court, non-Muslims and foreigners also had access to the judicial system. Under the Ottomans' initial system of feudal land grants, the timar system, the kadi served as an important check on the power of the local and regional military lords. Despite the unquestioned authority of the sultan, kadis possessed a certain degree of autonomy in their rulings.

Taxation in the Ottoman Empire changed drastically over time, and was a complex patchwork of different taxes, exemptions, and local customs.

The resm-i mücerred was a bachelor tax in the Ottoman Empire, related to the resm-i çift and the resm-i bennâk.

Under the Ottoman Empire, an arpalik or arpaluk was a large estate entrusted to some holder of senior position, or to some margrave, as a temporary arrangement before they were appointed to some appropriate position. Arpalik was a kind of appanage given to members of the Ottoman elite for tax farming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pavlo-Kurtik</span>

Pavlo-Kurtik was an administrative unit within the sanjak of Albania, Ottoman Empire, which had jurisdiction to the south of Tirana, between the Erzen and Shkumbin rivers. It was one of 9 vilayets of the Arvanit-ili province until 1466. Pavlo-Kurtik was first mentioned in the first defter of the Sanjak of Albania (1431–1432).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Albanian revolt of 1432–1436</span> Conflicts between Albanian rebels and the Ottoman Empire

The Albanian revolt of 1432–1436 was a series of conflicts between Albanian rebels and the Ottoman Empire during the early period of Ottoman rule in the region. Prompted by the replacement of large parts of the local nobility with Ottoman landowners, centralized governance, and the Ottoman taxation system, the population and the nobles, led principally by Gjergj Arianiti, revolted against the Ottomans.

The çift-hane system was the basic unit of agrarian land holding and taxation in the Ottoman Empire from its beginning. The pre-modern Ottoman system of land tenure was based on the distribution of land between publicly owned lands, miri and privately owned lands mülk, and the majority of the arable land was miri, especially grain-producing land. Peasants were the vast majority of the empire, and they worked as farmers on land designated as miri, relying heavily on wheat-barley production for their subsistence. The peasant household had been the basic form of agrarian production in much of the land ruled by the Ottomans since Roman times, and this had continued through Byzantine rule. So, the çift-hane system was based on the realities which were present in much of the lands the Ottomans conquered: a class of free peasants cultivating their own land, and a taxation policy combining Byzantine, Ottoman, and Islamic rules.

The Ottoman army was the military structure established by Mehmed II, during his reorganization of the state and the military. This was the major reorganization following Orhan's standing army of janissaries that were paid by salary rather than booty or fiefs. This army was the force during the rise of the Ottoman Empire. The organization was twofold, central (Kapıkulu) and peripheral (Eyalet). This army was forced to disband by Sultan Mahmud II on 15 June 1826 in what is known as Auspicious Incident, which followed a century-long reform effort.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ottoman decline thesis</span> Historical narrative

The Ottoman decline thesis or Ottoman decline paradigm is an obsolete historical narrative which once played a dominant role in the study of the history of the Ottoman Empire. According to the decline thesis, following a golden age associated with the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, the empire gradually entered into a period of all-encompassing stagnation and decline from which it was never able to recover, lasting until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1923. This thesis was used throughout most of the twentieth century as the basis of both Western and Republican Turkish understanding of Ottoman history. However, by 1978, historians had begun to reexamine the fundamental assumptions of the decline thesis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transformation of the Ottoman Empire</span> c. 1550 – c. 1700 period of the Ottoman Empire

The Transformation of the Ottoman Empire, also known as the Era of Transformation, constitutes a period in the history of the Ottoman Empire from c. 1550 to c. 1700, spanning roughly from the end of the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent to the Treaty of Karlowitz at the conclusion of the War of the Holy League. This period was characterized by numerous dramatic political, social, and economic changes, which resulted in the empire shifting from an expansionist, patrimonial state into a bureaucratic empire based on an ideology of upholding justice and acting as the protector of Sunni Islam. These changes were in large part prompted by a series of political and economic crises in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, resulting from inflation, warfare, and political factionalism. Yet despite these crises the empire remained strong both politically and economically, and continued to adapt to the challenges of a changing world. The 17th century was once characterized as a period of decline for the Ottomans, but since the 1980s historians of the Ottoman Empire have increasingly rejected that characterization, identifying it instead as a period of crisis, adaptation, and transformation.

References

  1. ↑ Özoğlu, Hakan (2004). Kurdish notables and the Ottoman state: evolving identities, competing loyalties, and shifting boundaries. SUNY Press. pp. 52–. ISBN   978-0-7914-5993-5.
  2. ↑ Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977, p. 99
  3. ↑ Hanson, Victor Davis (2007-12-18). Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN   978-0-307-42518-8.
  4. ↑ Reindl-Kiel, 208
  5. ↑ Ottoman
  6. 1 2 Ozel, 234
  7. ↑ Wiesner-Hanks, 73
  8. ↑ Lewis, 117
  9. 1 2 3 Inalcik (1994) 114
  10. ↑ Inalcik (1994) 74
  11. ↑ Ozel, 230
  12. 1 2 Lewis, 118
  13. 1 2 3 4 Inalcik (1994) 115
  14. ↑ Lewis, 112
  15. ↑ Inalcik (1954) 106
  16. ↑ Goffman, 77
  17. 1 2 Inalcik (1994) 116
  18. ↑ Inalcik (1994) 73; 114–115; 116–117
  19. 1 2 Katircioglu, Nurhan Fatma (1984). The Ottoman ayan, 1550-1812: a struggle for legitimacy. University of Wisconsin--Madison. pp. 98, 99.
  20. ↑ Zeʼevi, Dror (1996), An Ottoman century : the district of Jerusalem in the 1600s, Albany: State University of New York Press, p. 121, ISBN   978-0-585-04345-6, OCLC   42854785 , retrieved 29 December 2011
  21. ↑ Somel, Selcuk Aksin (23 March 2010). The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire. Scarecrow Press. p. 24. ISBN   978-1-4617-3176-4.
  22. 1 2 Ze'evi, Dror (1 February 2012). Ottoman Century, An: The District of Jerusalem in the 1600s. SUNY Press. p. 121. ISBN   978-1-4384-2475-0.
  23. ↑ Inalcik (1994) 90
  24. ↑ Inalcik (1994) 115; 117; 434; 467
  25. ↑ Inalcik (1994) 73
  26. ↑ Lewis, 122

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.