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, in the level of social, economic and cultural development, and in 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 one of the most important reasons for the success of Turkish weapons, has lost its former significance. Formally, legally, it continued to exist. But its actual content 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 political figure and writer of the 17th century. Kocibey Gomyurjinsky noted in his “risal” (treatise) that the Ottoman state “was won with a saber and can only be supported with 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 bulk 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 in 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 - formed on state land private feudal estate. 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. To replace the old exploiter - a sipahi, for whom the war was in the foreground and who was most interested in war booty, a new, much more money-hungry feudal landowner arrived, whose main goal 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 freehold 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. The 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 there were no even weak germs of new forms of production. 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 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 series of measures aimed at streamlining management, strengthening discipline in the state apparatus and the army, and regulating the tax system. However, all these measures led to only partial and short-term improvements.

Turkey 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 in the advanced European countries the process of primitive accumulation took place, Türkiye found itself on the sidelines of the economic development of Europe. Further, in Europe, nations and national states took shape, either single-national or multinational, but even 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 nationalities 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 countries soon affected the course of hostilities in Europe. In 1664, a large Turkish army suffered a heavy defeat at Saint Gotthard (Western Hungary) from the Austrians and Hungarians, who 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 new try 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. 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. The Azov campaigns of Peter I in 1695-1696 played an important role in the military events of this period, 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 Kamenets 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 happening then in Istanbul, in the Balkan cities, as well as in the main centers of Levantine trade (Thessaloniki, Izmir, Beirut, Cairo, Alexandria) famous height crafts and the emergence of manufacturing. 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 enterprises 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 benefits. 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 rose 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 Grand 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 climax 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 selflessness. 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 moved towards 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 for foreign merchants such wide opportunities for unhindered trade, would not have placed them in such favorable conditions compared to 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 Russian-Turkish war 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, unlike previous letters of surrender, the capitulation of 1740 was issued by the Sultan not only from own name, 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, which was triggered by the question of replacing the Polish throne, also owed much to the harassment of French diplomacy. This war, marked by the brilliant victories of 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, when signing an agreement with Austria in 1771, the Turks paid the Austrians 3 million piastres as an 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 the 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 complete elimination 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. Components The Eastern question was, 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.

Tithes were collected in kind from all types of grain, garden crops, fish catches, etc. In fact, it reached a third and even half of the harvest. The peasant's food was taken away best quality, leaving him the worst ones. The feudal lords, in addition, 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 lack of security 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 had in his charge not only the harem, but also the personal treasury of the Sultan, the waqfs of Mecca and Medina and a number of other sources of income and enjoyed great 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 accession (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) crown prince for the most part he 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 Sadraz 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 villagers 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 by 10 times over 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. The money intended for the active army or for the fortress garrisons was half stolen in the capital, and the lion's share 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, and subsequently 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 to reimburse his costs for the purchase of a position, bribes and travel in a shorter period of time. 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 language 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, the first printing house in Turkey 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 for the most part by hand.

The development of science, literature and art in Turkey was especially hampered by the dominance of Muslim scholasticism. The higher clergy did not allow secular education. Mullahs and numerous dervish orders entangled the people 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 lands 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 measure 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 to 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; Phanariotes - rich and noble Greeks, from among whom came the highest representatives 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 and did not allow church service in a language other than Greek, etc. Hellenization was carried out especially actively in Bulgaria and the Danube principalities, but it met with 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, the 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.

The development of trade and trade-usurious capital, given the general backwardness of social relations among the Balkan peoples, has not yet created the conditions for the emergence of a capitalist mode of production. But the further we 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 they also involved urban population, the clergy, even Christian feudal lords who survived in some areas, and in Serbia and Montenegro - local Christian authorities (princes, governors and tribal leaders). 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 Petrovich fought hard for complete liberation Montenegro from the Porte authorities, 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 a 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 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 of the Aegean Sea in 1770. 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 national movement was accompanied by the emergence of great power ideas, plans for the revival of the great Greek Empire on the ruins of Turkey and the 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. were scientists, writers and teachers Eugennos Voulgaris (died 1806) and Nikiforos Theotokis (died 1800), and later the outstanding 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, Gospodar 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 Maan capital - Dayr al-Qamar and the Shihab residences - 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 Pashalyk; for a long time they refrained from interfering in the internal affairs of Lebanon.

The Lebanese peasants won the victory at Ain Dar, but this did not lead to an improvement in their situation. Emir Haydar limited himself to taking 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 major center 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. For its payment, a number of new ones were introduced, previously not known to Lebanon extortions - a poll tax, taxes on sericulture, on mills, etc. The Turkish authorities again began to openly interfere in the internal affairs of Lebanon, their troops, sent to collect tribute, robbed and burned villages, exterminated the inhabitants. All this caused continuous uprisings, weakening 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 the Turkish-Iranian rivalry, the Kurdish feudal lords often shirked their military duties, and sometimes openly sided with the Iranian Shah against the Turkish Sultan or maneuvered between the Sultan and the Shah in order to achieve greater independence. In turn, the Turkish pashas, ​​seeking to consolidate their power, incited 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 is a white slave (usually of Caucasian origin), a soldier in 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.

A new large wave of 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 dealt a serious blow to Turkish dominance 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 Hejaz: the Turkish sultans attached exceptional importance to their nominal dominance over holy cities Islam - Mecca and Medina, which served as the basis for their claims to spiritual power over all “orthodox” 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. Turkish Pasha Hijaza 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 with 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. Principalities and tribes forcibly annexed by the Wahhabis more than once rebelled and renounced 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 artistry of style with the best monuments of classical Arabic geographical literature. But these works were known only in a narrow circle of Orthodox Arabs, mainly among the clergy.

At the beginning of the 18th century. The first printing house was founded in Istanbul. It published only Muslim religious books in Arabic - 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 craftsmen continued to manifest itself in remarkable architectural monuments and handicrafts. 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.

Ottoman Empire in the XV - XVII centuries. Istanbul

The Ottoman Empire, created as a result of the aggressive campaigns of the Turkish sultans, occupied at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. a huge territory in three parts of the world - Europe, Asia and Africa. Managing this gigantic state with a diverse population, varied climatic conditions and economic and living traditions was not an easy task. And if the Turkish sultans in the second half of the 15th century. and in the 16th century. managed to solve this problem in general, the main components of success were: a consistent policy of centralization and strengthening of political unity, a well-organized and well-functioning military machine, closely connected with the timar (military-fief) system of land ownership. And all these three levers of ensuring the power of the empire were firmly held in the hands of the sultans, who personified the fullness of power, not only secular, but also spiritual, for the sultan bore the title of caliph - the spiritual head of all Sunni Muslims.

The residence of the sultans since the middle of the 15th century. Until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul was the center of the entire system of government, the focus of the highest authorities. The French researcher of the history of the Ottoman capital, Robert Mantran, rightly sees in this city the embodiment of all the specifics of the Ottoman state. “Despite the diversity of territories and peoples under the rule of the Sultan,” he writes, “throughout its history the Ottoman capital, Istanbul, was the embodiment of the empire, at first due to the cosmopolitan nature of its population, where, however, the Turkish element was dominant and predominant, and then due to the fact that it represented the synthesis of this empire in the form of its administrative and military, economic and cultural center.”

Having become the capital of one of the most powerful states of the Middle Ages, ancient city on the banks of the Bosphorus, once again in its history it has become a political and economic center of world significance. It again became the most important point of transit trade. And although the great geographical discoveries of the 15th-16th centuries. led to the movement of the main routes of world trade from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, the Black Sea straits remained the most important trade artery. Istanbul, as the residence of the caliphs, acquired the significance of the religious and cultural center of the Muslim world. The former capital of Eastern Christianity has become the main bastion of Islam. Mehmed II moved his residence from Edirne to Istanbul only in the winter of 1457/58. But even before that, he ordered the empty city to be populated. The first new residents of Istanbul were Turks from Aksaray and Armenians from Bursa, as well as Greeks from the Seas and the islands of the Aegean Sea.

The new capital suffered from the plague more than once. In 1466, 600 residents of Istanbul died every day from this terrible disease. The dead were not always buried on time, because there were not enough gravediggers in the city. Mehmed II, who at that moment returned from a military campaign in Albania, chose to wait out the terrible time in the Macedonian mountains. Less than ten years later, an even more devastating epidemic struck the city. This time the entire court of the Sultan moved to the Balkan Mountains. Plague epidemics occurred in Istanbul in subsequent centuries. Tens of thousands of lives were claimed, in particular, by the plague epidemic that raged in the capital in 1625.

And yet the number of inhabitants of the new Turkish capital was rapidly increasing. By the end of the 15th century. it exceeded 200 thousand. To estimate this figure, we will give two examples. In 1500, only six European cities had a population of more than 100 thousand - Paris, Venice, Milan, Naples, Moscow and Istanbul. In the Balkan region, Istanbul was the largest city. So, if Edirne and Thessaloniki at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. numbered 5 thousand taxable households, then in Istanbul already in the 70s of the 15th century. there were more than 16 thousand such farms, and in the 16th century. Istanbul's population growth was even more significant. Selim I resettled many Vlachs to his capital. After the conquest of Belgrade, many Serbian artisans settled in Istanbul, and the conquest of Syria and Egypt led to the appearance of Syrian and Egyptian artisans in the city. Further population growth was predetermined rapid development crafts and trade, as well as extensive construction, which required many workers. By the middle of the 16th century. in Istanbul there were from 400 to 500 thousand inhabitants.

The ethnic composition of the inhabitants of medieval Istanbul was diverse. The majority of the population were Turks. In Istanbul, neighborhoods appeared populated by people from the cities of Asia Minor and named after these cities - Aksaray, Karaman, Charshamba. In a short time, significant groups of non-Turkish population, mainly Greek and Armenian, formed in the capital. By order of the Sultan, new residents were provided with houses that were empty after the death or enslavement of their former residents. New settlers were provided with various benefits in order to encourage them to engage in crafts or trade.

The most significant group of the non-Turkish population were the Greeks - immigrants from the Seas, from the islands of the Aegean Sea and from Asia Minor. Greek quarters arose around churches and the residence of the Greek patriarch. Since there were about three dozen Orthodox churches and they were scattered throughout the city, neighborhoods with a compact Greek population gradually emerged in different areas of Istanbul and in its suburbs. The Istanbul Greeks played an important role in trade, fishing and navigation, and occupied a strong position in handicraft production. Most of the drinking establishments belonged to the Greeks. A significant part of the city was occupied by neighborhoods of Armenians and Jews, who also settled, as a rule, around their houses of worship - churches and synagogues - or near the residences of the spiritual heads of their communities - the Armenian patriarch and chief rabbi.

Armenians constituted the second largest group of the non-Turkish population of the capital. After Istanbul turned into a major transshipment point, they began to actively participate in international trade as intermediaries. Over time, Armenians took an important place in banking. They also played a very noticeable role in the handicraft industry of Istanbul.

Third place belonged to the Jews. At first they occupied a dozen blocks near the Golden Horn, and then began to settle in a number of other areas of the old city. Jewish quarters also appeared on the northern bank of the Golden Horn. Jews have traditionally participated in intermediary operations of international trade and played an important role in banking.

There were many Arabs in Istanbul, mostly from Egypt and Syria. Albanians, most of them Muslims, also settled here. Serbs and Wallachians, Georgians and Abkhazians, Persians and Gypsies also lived in the Turkish capital. Here one could meet representatives of almost all the peoples of the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The picture of the Turkish capital was made even more colorful by the colony of Europeans - Italians, French, Dutch and English, who were engaged in trade, medical or pharmaceutical practice. In Istanbul they were usually called “Franks”, uniting under this name people from different countries of Western Europe.

Interesting data on the Muslim and non-Muslim population of Istanbul over time. In 1478, the city was 58.11% Muslim and 41.89% non-Muslim. In 1520-1530 this ratio looked the same: Muslims 58.3% and non-Muslims 41.7%. Travelers noted approximately the same ratio in the 17th century. As is clear from the above data, Istanbul was very different in population composition from all other cities of the Ottoman Empire, where non-Muslims were usually in the minority. The Turkish sultans in the first centuries of the empire’s existence seemed to demonstrate, using the example of the capital, the possibility of coexistence between conquerors and the conquered. However, this never obscured the difference in their legal status.

In the second half of the 15th century. The Turkish sultans established that spiritual and some civil affairs (issues of marriage and divorce, property litigation, etc.) of Greeks, Armenians and Jews would be in charge of their religious communities (millets). Through the heads of these communities, the Sultan's authorities also levied various taxes and fees on non-Muslims. The patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Gregorian communities, as well as the chief rabbi of the Jewish community, were placed in the position of mediators between the Sultan and the non-Muslim population. The sultans patronized the heads of communities and provided them with all kinds of favors as payment for maintaining a spirit of humility and obedience in their flock.

Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire were denied access to administrative or military careers. Therefore, the majority of Istanbul's non-Muslim residents usually engaged in crafts or trade. The exception was a small part of the Greeks from wealthy families who lived in the Phanar quarter on the European shore of the Golden Horn. Phanariot Greeks were in the public service, mainly in the positions of dragomans - official translators.

The Sultan's residence was the center of the political and administrative life of the empire. All state affairs were resolved on the territory of the Topkapi palace complex. The tendency towards maximum centralization of power was expressed in the empire in the fact that all the main government departments were located on the territory of the Sultan's residence or near it. This seemed to emphasize that the person of the Sultan is the focus of all power in the empire, and the dignitaries, even the highest, are only executors of his will, and their own life and property depend entirely on the ruler.

In the first courtyard of Topkapi, the management of finances and archives, the mint, the management of waqfs (lands and property, the income from which went to religious or charitable purposes), and the arsenal were located. In the second courtyard there was a divan - an advisory council under the Sultan; The Sultan's office and the state treasury were also located here. The third courtyard contained the Sultan's personal residence, his harem and personal treasury. From the middle of the 17th century. one of the palaces built near Topkapi became the permanent residence of the great vizier. In the immediate vicinity of Topkapi, the barracks of the Janissary corps were built, where from 10 thousand to 12 thousand Janissaries were usually housed.

Since the Sultan was considered the supreme leader and commander-in-chief of all the warriors of Islam in the holy war against the “infidels,” the very ceremony of the accession of the Turkish sultans to the throne was accompanied by the ritual of “girdling with the sword.” Setting off for this unique coronation, the new sultan arrived at the Eyyub Mosque, located on the shores of the Golden Horn. In this mosque, the sheikh of the revered order of Mevlevi dervishes girded the new sultan with the saber of the legendary Osman. Returning to his palace, the Sultan drank a traditional cup of sherbet at the Janissary barracks, having accepted it from the hands of one of the highest Janissary military leaders. Having then filled the cup with gold coins and assured the Janissaries of their constant readiness to fight against the “infidels,” the Sultan seemed to assure the Janissaries of his favor.

The Sultan's personal treasury, unlike the state treasury, usually did not experience a shortage of funds. It was constantly replenished in a variety of ways - tribute from the vassal Danube principalities and Egypt, income from waqf institutions, endless offerings and gifts.

Fabulous sums were spent on maintaining the Sultan's court. The palace servants numbered in the thousands. More than 10 thousand people lived and fed in the palace complex - courtiers, sultan's wives and concubines, eunuchs, servants, and palace guards. The staff of the courtiers was especially numerous. There were not only the usual court officials - stewards and housekeepers, bedkeepers and falconers, stirrups and huntsmen - but also the chief court astrologer, the guardians of the Sultan's fur coat and turban, even the guards of his nightingale and parrot!

In accordance with Muslim tradition, the Sultan's palace consisted of a male half, where the Sultan's chambers and all official premises were located, and a female half, called the harem. This part of the palace was under the constant protection of black eunuchs, whose head had the title of “kyzlar agasy” (“master of the girls”) and occupied one of the highest places in the court hierarchy. He not only had absolute control over the life of the harem, but was also in charge of the Sultan’s personal treasury. He was also in charge of the waqfs of Mecca and Medina. The head of the black eunuchs was special, close to the Sultan, enjoyed his trust and had very great power. Over time, the influence of this person became so significant that his opinion was decisive in deciding the most important affairs of the empire. More than one grand vizier owed his appointment or removal to the head of the black eunuchs. It happened, however, that the leaders of the black eunuchs also came to a bad end. The first person in the harem was the sultana mother (“valide sultan”). She also played a significant role in political affairs. In general, the harem has always been the center of palace intrigue. Many conspiracies, directed not only against high dignitaries, but also against the Sultan himself, arose within the walls of the harem.

The luxury of the Sultan's court was intended to emphasize the greatness and significance of the ruler in the eyes of not only his subjects, but also representatives of other states with which the Ottoman Empire had diplomatic relations.

Although the Turkish sultans had unlimited power, it happened that they themselves became victims of palace intrigues and conspiracies. Therefore, the sultans tried in every possible way to protect themselves; personal guards had to constantly protect them from unexpected attacks. Even under Bayezid II, a rule was established that prohibited armed people from approaching the person of the Sultan. Moreover, under the successors of Mehmed II, any person could approach the Sultan only if accompanied by two guards who took him by the arms. Measures were constantly taken to eliminate the possibility of poisoning the Sultan.

Since fratricide in the Osman dynasty was legalized under Mehmed II, throughout the 15th and 16th centuries. dozens of princes ended their days, some in infancy, at the behest of the sultans. However, even this cruel law could not protect the Turkish monarchs from palace conspiracies. Already during the reign of Sultan Suleiman I, two of his sons, Bayazid and Mustafa, were deprived of their lives. This was the result of the intrigue of Suleiman’s beloved wife, Sultana Roksolana, who in such a cruel way cleared the way to the throne for her son Selim.

On behalf of the Sultan, the country was ruled by the Grand Vizier, in whose residence the most important administrative, financial and military matters were considered and decided. The Sultan entrusted the exercise of his spiritual power to Sheikh-ul-Islam, the highest Muslim cleric of the empire. And although these two highest dignitaries were entrusted by the Sultan himself with all the fullness of secular and spiritual power, real power in the state was very often concentrated in the hands of his associates. It happened more than once that state affairs were carried out in the chambers of the Sultana-mother, in the circle of people close to her from the court administration.

In the complex vicissitudes of palace life, the Janissaries invariably played the most important role. The Janissary Corps, which for several centuries formed the basis of the Turkish standing army, was one of the strongest pillars of the Sultan's throne. The sultans sought to win the hearts of the Janissaries with generosity. There was, in particular, a custom according to which the sultans had to give them gifts upon accession to the throne. This custom eventually turned into a kind of tribute from the sultans to the Janissary corps. Over time, the Janissaries became something of a Praetorian Guard. They played the first violin in almost all palace coups; the sultans continually removed high dignitaries who did not please the Janissary freemen. As a rule, about a third of the Janissary corps was in Istanbul, i.e., from 10 thousand to 15 thousand people. From time to time, the capital was shaken by riots, which usually arose in one of the Janissary barracks.

In 1617-1623 Janissary riots led to changes in sultans four times. One of them, Sultan Osman II, was enthroned at the age of fourteen, and four years later he was killed by the Janissaries. This happened in 1622. And ten years later, in 1632, a Janissary rebellion broke out again in Istanbul. Returning to the capital from an unsuccessful campaign, they besieged the Sultan's palace, and then a deputation of Janissaries and Sipahis burst into the Sultan's chambers, demanded the appointment of a new grand vizier they liked and the extradition of dignitaries against whom the rebels had claims. The rebellion was suppressed, as always, yielding to the Janissaries, but their passions were already so inflamed that with the onset of the Muslim holy days of Ramadan, crowds of Janissaries with torches in their hands rushed around the city at night, threatening to set fire to extorting money and property from dignitaries and wealthy citizens.

More often than not, ordinary Janissaries turned out to be mere instruments in the hands of palace factions opposing each other. The head of the corps - the Janissary aga - was one of the most influential figures in the Sultan's administration; the highest dignitaries of the empire valued his location. The sultans treated the Janissaries with special attention, periodically arranging all kinds of entertainment and shows for them. In the most difficult moments for the state, none of the dignitaries risked delaying the payment of salaries to the Janissaries, because this could cost their lives. The prerogatives of the Janissaries were guarded so carefully that things sometimes came to sad oddities. Once it happened that the chief master of ceremonies on the day of a Muslim holiday mistakenly allowed the commanders of the cavalry and artillery of the former Janissary aga to kiss the sultan's robe. The absent-minded master of ceremonies was immediately executed.

Janissary riots were also dangerous for the sultans. In the summer of 1703, the Janissary uprising ended with the overthrow of Sultan Mustafa II from the throne.

The riot started out quite normally. Its instigators were several companies of Janissaries who did not want to set out on the appointed campaign in Georgia, citing a delay in the payment of salaries. The rebels, supported by a significant part of the Janissaries who were in the city, as well as softs (students of theological schools - madrassas), artisans and merchants, turned out to be practically the masters of the capital. The Sultan and his court were at this time in Edirne. A split began among the dignitaries and ulema of the capital; some joined the rebels. Crowds of rioters destroyed the houses of dignitaries they disliked, including the house of the Istanbul mayor - kaymakam. One of the military leaders hated by the Janissaries, Hashim-zade Murtaza Agha, was killed. The rebel leaders appointed new dignitaries to senior positions, and then sent a deputation to the Sultan in Edirne, demanding the extradition of a number of courtiers whom they considered guilty of disordering state affairs.

The Sultan tried to pay off the rebels by sending a large sum to Istanbul to pay salaries and give cash gifts to the Janissaries. But this did not bring the desired result. Mustafa had to depose and send into exile Sheikh-ul-Islam Feyzullah Effendi, who was disliked by the rebels. At the same time, he gathered troops loyal to him in Edirne. Then the Janissaries moved from Istanbul to Edirne on August 10, 1703; already on the way, they proclaimed Mustafa II's brother, Ahmed, as the new sultan. The matter ended without bloodshed. Negotiations between the rebel commanders and the military leaders leading the Sultan's troops ended with a fatwa of the new Sheikh-ul-Islam on the deposition of Mustafa II and the accession of Ahmed III to the throne. The direct participants in the riot received the highest pardon, but when the unrest in the capital subsided and the government again controlled the situation, some of the rebel leaders were nevertheless executed.

We have already said that centralized management of a huge empire required a significant government apparatus. The heads of the main government departments, among which the first was the Grand Vizier, together with a number of the highest dignitaries of the empire, formed an advisory council under the Sultan, called the diwan. This council discussed state issues of special importance.

The office of the Grand Vizier was called “Bab-i Ali”, which literally meant “High Gate”. In French, the language of diplomacy of the time, it sounded like “La Sublime Porte,” i.e., “The Brilliant [or High] Gate.” In the language of Russian diplomacy, the French “Porte” turned into “Porto”. Thus, “The Sublime Porte” or “Sublime Porte” became the name of the Ottoman government in Russia for a long time. “The Ottoman Port” was sometimes called not only the highest body of secular power of the Ottoman Empire, but also the Turkish state itself.

The post of Grand Vizier existed since the founding of the Ottoman dynasty (established in 1327). The Grand Vizier always had access to the Sultan; he carried out state affairs on behalf of the sovereign. The symbol of his power was the state seal he kept. When the Sultan ordered the Grand Vizier to transfer the seal to another dignitary, this meant, at best, immediate resignation. Often this order meant exile, and sometimes a death sentence. The office of the Grand Vizier managed all state affairs, including military ones. The heads of other government departments, as well as the beylerbeys (governors) of Anatolia and Rumelia and the dignitaries who ruled the sanjaks (provinces), were subordinate to his head. But still, the power of the great vizier depended on many reasons, including such random ones as the whim or caprice of the sultan, the intrigues of the palace camarilla.

A high position in the capital of the empire meant unusually large incomes. The highest dignitaries received land grants from the Sultan, which brought colossal sums of money. As a result, many high dignitaries accumulated enormous wealth. For example, when the treasures of the great vizier Sinan Pasha, who died at the end of the 16th century, entered the treasury, their size amazed contemporaries so much that the story about it ended up in one of the famous Turkish medieval chronicles.

An important government department was the Kadiasker department. It supervised the justice and court authorities, as well as school affairs. Since the legal proceedings and the educational system were based on the norms of Sharia - Islamic law, the department of the Qadiasker was subordinate not only to the Grand Vizier, but also to the Sheikh-ul-Islam. Until 1480, there was a single department of the Cadiasker of the Rumelian and the Cadiasker of the Anatolians.

The finances of the empire were managed by the office of the defterdar (lit., “keeper of the register”). The Nishanji Department was a kind of protocol department of the empire, for its officials drew up numerous decrees of the sultans, providing them with a skillfully executed tughra - the monogram of the ruling sultan, without which the decree did not receive the force of law. Until the middle of the 17th century. Nishanji's department also carried out relations between the Ottoman Empire and other countries.

Numerous officials of all ranks were considered “slaves of the Sultan.” Many dignitaries actually began their careers as real slaves in palace or military service. But even having received a high position in the empire, each of them knew that his position and life depended only on the will of the Sultan. The life path of one of the great viziers of the 16th century is noteworthy. - Lutfi Pasha, who is known as the author of an essay on the functions of the great viziers (“Asaf-name”). He came to the Sultan's palace as a boy among the children of Christians who were forcibly recruited to serve in the Janissary corps, served in the Sultan's personal guard, changed a number of posts in the Janissary army, became beylerbey of Anatolia, and then Rumelia. Lutfi Pasha was married to the sister of Sultan Suleiman. It helped my career. But he lost the post of grand vizier as soon as he dared to break with his high-born wife. However, his fate was far from worse.

Executions were common in medieval Istanbul. The table of ranks was reflected even in the treatment of the heads of the executed, which were usually displayed near the walls of the Sultan's palace. The severed head of the vizier was given a silver plate and a place on a marble column at the palace gates. A lesser dignitary could only rely on a simple wooden plate for his head, which had flown off his shoulders, and the heads of ordinary officials who had been fined or innocently executed were laid without any supports on the ground near the walls of the palace.

Sheikh-ul-Islam occupied a special place in the Ottoman Empire and in the life of its capital. The highest clergy, the ulema, consisted of qadis - judges in Muslim courts, muftis - Islamic theologians and muderris - madrasah teachers. The strength of the Muslim clergy was determined not only by its exclusive role in the spiritual life and administration of the empire. It owned vast tracts of land, as well as a variety of property in cities.

Only Sheikh-ul-Islam had the right to interpret any decision of the secular authorities of the empire from the point of view of the provisions of the Koran and Sharia. His fatwa - a document approving acts of supreme power - was also necessary for the Sultan's decree. Fatwas even sanctioned the deposition of sultans and their accession to the throne. Sheikh-ul-Islam occupied a position equal to the Grand Vizier in the Ottoman official hierarchy. The latter paid him a traditional official visit every year, emphasizing the respect of the secular authorities for the head of the Muslim clergy. Sheikh-ul-Islam received a huge salary from the treasury.

The Ottoman bureaucracy was not distinguished by purity of morals. Already in the decree of Sultan Mehmed III (1595-1603), issued on the occasion of his accession to the throne, it was said that in the past in the Ottoman Empire no one suffered from injustice and extortion, but now the set of laws guaranteeing justice is neglected, and in In administrative matters there are all kinds of injustices. Over time, corruption and abuse of power, sale of lucrative places and rampant bribery became very common.

As the power of the Ottoman Empire grew, many European sovereigns began to show increasing interest in friendly relations with it. Istanbul often hosted foreign embassies and missions. The Venetians were especially active, whose ambassador visited the court of Mehmed II already in 1454. At the end of the 15th century. Diplomatic relations between the Porte and France and the Muscovite state began. And already in the 16th century. Diplomats of European powers fought in Istanbul for influence on the Sultan and Porto.

In the middle of the 16th century. arose and survived until the end of the 18th century. the custom of providing foreign embassies with allowances from the treasury during their stay in the sultans' possessions. Thus, in 1589, the Sublime Porte gave the Persian ambassador one hundred sheep and one hundred sweet breads per day, as well as a significant sum of money. Ambassadors of Muslim states received higher salaries than representatives of Christian powers.

For almost 200 years after the fall of Constantinople, foreign embassies were located in Istanbul itself, where a special building was allocated for them, called “Elchi Khan” (“Embassy Court”). From the middle of the 17th century. Ambassadors were given residences in Galata and Pera, and representatives of the Sultan's vassal states were located in Elchihan.

The reception of foreign ambassadors was carried out according to a carefully designed ceremony, which was supposed to testify to the power of the Ottoman Empire and the power of the monarch himself. They tried to impress the distinguished guests not only with the decoration of the Sultan’s residence, but also with the menacing appearance of the Janissaries, who on such occasions lined up in thousands in front of the palace as an honor guard. The culmination of the reception was usually the admission of ambassadors and their retinue to the throne room, where they could approach the person of the Sultan only when accompanied by his personal guard. At the same time, according to tradition, each of the guests was led to the throne arm in arm by two of the Sultan’s guards, who were responsible for the safety of their master. Rich gifts to the Sultan and the Grand Vizier were an indispensable attribute of any foreign embassy. Violations of this tradition were rare and, as a rule, cost the perpetrators dearly. In 1572, the French ambassador was never granted an audience with Selim II, because he did not bring gifts from his king. In 1585, the Austrian ambassador was treated even worse, who also came to the Sultan’s court without gifts. He was simply imprisoned. The custom of presenting gifts to the Sultan by foreign ambassadors existed until the middle of the 18th century.

Relations between foreign representatives and the grand vizier and other high dignitaries of the empire were also usually associated with many formalities and conventions, and the need to give them expensive gifts remained until the second half of the 18th century. the norm of business relations with the Porte and its departments.

When war was declared, the ambassadors were put in prison, in particular in the casemates of Yedikule, the Seven Tower Castle. But even in peacetime, cases of insulting ambassadors and even physical violence against them or arbitrary imprisonment were not an extreme phenomenon. The Sultan and Porta treated representatives of Russia, perhaps, with more respect than other foreign ambassadors. With the exception of imprisonment in the Seven Tower Castle during the outbreak of wars with Russia, Russian representatives were not subjected to public humiliation or violence. The first Moscow ambassador in Istanbul, Stolnik Pleshcheev (1496), was received by Sultan Bayazid II, and the Sultan’s response letters contained assurances of friendship for the Moscow state, and very good words about Pleshcheev himself. The attitude of the Sultan and the Porte towards Russian ambassadors in subsequent times was obviously determined by their reluctance to worsen relations with their powerful neighbor.

However, Istanbul was not only the political center of the Ottoman Empire. “In its importance and as the residence of the Caliph, Istanbul became the first city of Muslims, as fabulous as ancient capital Arab caliphs, notes N. Todorov. - It contained enormous wealth, which consisted of the spoils of victorious wars, indemnities, a constant influx of taxes and other revenues, and income from developing trade. The key geographical location - at the crossroads of several major trade routes by land and sea - and the supply privileges that Istanbul enjoyed for several centuries turned it into the largest European city."

The capital of the Turkish sultans had the glory of a beautiful and prosperous city. Samples of Muslim architecture fit well into the magnificent natural landscape of the city. The new architectural appearance of the city did not emerge immediately. Extensive construction took place in Istanbul for a long time, starting from the second half of the 15th century. The Sultans took care of the restoration and further strengthening of the city walls. Then new buildings began to appear - the Sultan's residence, mosques, palaces.

The gigantic city naturally fell into three parts: Istanbul itself, located on the cape between the Sea of ​​Marmara and the Golden Horn, Galata and Pera on the northern shore of the Golden Horn, and Uskudar on the Asian shore of the Bosphorus, the third large district of the Turkish capital, which grew up on the site of ancient Chrysopolis. The main part of the urban ensemble was Istanbul, the boundaries of which were determined by the lines of the land and sea walls of the former Byzantine capital. It was here, in the old part of the city, that the political, religious and administrative center of the Ottoman Empire developed. Here were the residence of the Sultan, all government institutions and departments, and the most important religious buildings. In this part of the city, according to a tradition preserved from Byzantine times, the largest trading firms and craft workshops were located.

Eyewitnesses, who unanimously admired the general panorama and location of the city, were equally unanimous in the disappointment that arose upon closer acquaintance with it. “The city inside does not live up to its beauty appearance, wrote an Italian traveler of the early 17th century. Pietro della Balle. - On the contrary, it is quite ugly, since no one cares to keep the streets clean... due to the negligence of the inhabitants, the streets have become dirty and inconvenient... There are very few streets here that can be easily passed by... road crews - they are used only by women and those people who cannot walk. All other streets can only be ridden on horseback or walked, without experiencing much satisfaction.” Narrow and crooked, mostly unpaved, with continuous ups and downs, dirty and gloomy - this is how almost all the streets of medieval Istanbul look in the descriptions of eyewitnesses. Only one of the streets in the old part of the city - Divan Iolu - was wide, relatively neat and even beautiful. But this was the central highway along which the Sultan’s cortege usually passed through the entire city from the Adrianople Gate to the Topkapi Palace.

Travelers were disappointed by the appearance of many of Istanbul's old buildings. But gradually, as the Ottoman Empire expanded, the Turks perceived the higher culture of the peoples they conquered, which, naturally, was reflected in urban planning. Nevertheless, in the XVI-XVIII centuries. The residential buildings of the Turkish capital looked more than modest and did not at all inspire admiration. European travelers noted that the private houses of Istanbul residents, with the exception of the palaces of dignitaries and wealthy merchants, were unattractive buildings.

In medieval Istanbul there were from 30 thousand to 40 thousand buildings - residential buildings, trade and craft establishments. The overwhelming majority were one-story wooden houses. At the same time, in the second half of the XV-XVII centuries. In the Ottoman capital, many buildings were built that became examples of Ottoman architecture. These were cathedral and small mosques, numerous Muslim religious schools - madrassas, dervish abodes - tekkes, caravanserais, market buildings and various Muslim charitable institutions, palaces of the Sultan and his nobles. In the first years after the conquest of Constantinople, the Eski Saray (Old Palace) palace was built, where the residence of Sultan Mehmed II was located for 15 years.

In 1466, on the square where the ancient acropolis of Byzantium was once located, the construction of a new Sultan's residence, Topkapi, began. She remained a residence Ottoman sultans until the 19th century The construction of palace buildings on the territory of Topkapi continued in the 16th-18th centuries. The main charm of the Topkapi palace complex was its location: it was located on a high hill, literally hanging over the waters of the Sea of ​​Marmara, and it was decorated with beautiful gardens.

Mosques and mausoleums, palace buildings and ensembles, madrassas and tekkes were not only examples of Ottoman architecture. Many of them also became monuments of Turkish medieval applied art. Masters of artistic processing of stone and marble, wood and metal, bone and leather participated in the external decoration of buildings, but especially their interiors. The finest carvings decorated wooden doors rich mosques and palace buildings. Amazingly crafted tiled panels and colored stained glass windows, skillfully made bronze candelabra, famous carpets from the Asia Minor city of Ushak - all this was evidence of the talent and hard work of numerous nameless craftsmen who created genuine examples of medieval applied art. Fountains were built in many places in Istanbul, the construction of which was considered a godly deed by Muslims who highly revered water.

Along with Muslim places of worship, the famous Turkish baths gave Istanbul its unique appearance. “After mosques,” noted one of the travelers, “the first objects that strike a visitor in a Turkish city are buildings topped with lead domes, in which holes with convex glass are made in a checkerboard pattern. These are "gammas", or public baths. They belong to the best works of architecture in Turkey, and there is no town so pitiful and public baths, open from four in the morning to eight in the evening. There are up to three hundred of them in Constantinople.”

Baths in Istanbul, as in all Turkish cities, were also a place of relaxation and meeting for residents, something like a club, where after bathing they could spend many hours talking over a traditional cup of coffee.

Like baths, markets were an integral part of the appearance of the Turkish capital. There were many markets in Istanbul, most of them covered. There were markets selling flour, meat and fish, vegetables and fruits, furs and fabrics. There was also a special

1. Social system of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th-18th centuries.

2. Stages of reforms in the empire. Tanzimat

3. “Eastern Question” in the politics of European powers

4. Young Turk Revolution

The Turkish people are one of the youngest in human history. It emerged as something independent and separate from other tribes around the 13th century. The common ancestors of the Turks and Turkmen were burdens. These are tribes living east of the Caspian Sea. In the 11th century Some of the burdens went on a campaign to the west; those who remained are the current Turkmens. At the end of the 11th century. this part settled on the peninsula of Asia Minor. It reminded them of their homeland, only it had a more favorable climate: many pastures for their nomadic lifestyle. The first Turkish statehood arose there. To do this, they had to push out the Greeks and Armenians, partly the Arabs. This statehood turned out to be very shaky in the 13th century. it was defeated by the Mongols during their invasion. This former statehood is called the statehood of the Seljuk Turks. Seljuks is the name of their ruling dynasty, which was ended by the Mongols.
Until the 14th century The Turks did not have statehood. The Ottoman dynasty, which ruled until the 20th century, begins to rise. The state they created became known as the Ottoman Turks.

Features of Turkish statehood. It is "the only truly military power of the Middle Ages." The entire system of life was permeated with militarism. “Our state was created with a saber; it can only be supported with a saber.”

The Turks created the only military contingent in the world, which no one else had thought of until that time - the Janissaries. They took boys about 7 years old from 7 conquered peoples, converted them to Islam, and made them into the Sultan’s guard: ferocious and cruel warriors who were forbidden to marry and were engaged only in military affairs. But they could mock not only the conquered peoples, but also the Turks, who did not respect the Sultan. There were cases when even their own fathers were killed.

The Turks were Muslims and remained so all the time. The rise of the Ottoman dynasty was associated with special zeal in matters of faith. The Turks attracted ghazis - fighters for the faith.
The rise of the power of the Ottoman dynasty was associated not only with religious trends. These ghazis hoped to profit from the campaigns that the Ottomans carried out against Christians. In 1389 The Ottomans defeated the Serbs on Kosovo. This is a day of national mourning for the Serbs. 9 years earlier, Rus' defeated the horde on the Kulikovo Field.
1453 when the Turks took Constantinople. The Turks blocked all routes to the east. They created a huge empire. The Ottoman Empire inspired fear and horror throughout Europe. In the 16th century they were already not far from Vienna, i.e. possessions extended to Central Europe.

Social system of the Ottoman Empire. The social order was based not only on the fear of the Turkish saber. They had the same classes as other states. This -

People of the sword, i.e. military;

People of the pen are officials;

Farmers;

The people of the bazaar are traders and artisans;

Non-Muslims stood apart - they were called “the herd”.

All Muslim countries had these classes. But the Turks had a particularly strong military class. The Janissaries constituted only part of this class and not the largest. The main part were sipahis (horsemen). They had their own lands, they had several horses and servants. In fact, it was a small detachment, with 10-15 people walking with one sipahi. It was the sipahis who received not only part of the spoils for participating in campaigns, but also the right to collect taxes from land grants. In Europe, medieval fief was given as the entire territory, with a castle, roads. But among the Turks, flax was not their property, they only collected taxes from them. After the Sipah and the Janissaries, everyone else stood much lower. This was the case in the 16th and, partly, in the 17th centuries.

The situation began to change, and for the worse.

In the 18th century The Ottoman Empire was going through a crisis, and in the 19th century. the question arises about its further existence - the “Eastern Question”, who will get the Ottoman inheritance. In European language, not Ottomans, but Ottomans.

Where did the crisis come from? With all the power of the Ottoman state, initially there were defects and vices that corroded it.

Sultan. The Turks called him padishah. Each of them tried to secure unlimited power for themselves, using even the most extreme measures. The style of government was harsh and rude.

The second social vice, even more terrible, is corruption. It did not spread instantly among them. She was in many societies. It was practically legalized. They introduced accounting and took taxes from it. This system even corroded the Janissary corps. They were no longer interested in military service or long campaigns. They wanted to extort gifts from the sultans and from everyone else. Among them there were many people who had nothing to do with military service at all, who simply simply bought themselves a Janissary diploma. When the Sultan did not suit the Janissaries, anything could happen to him. Sultan Selin 3 at the beginning of the 19th century. was first overthrown, then killed by the Janissaries.

The third vice is interreligious and interethnic strife. Muslim Turks oppressed Christians and other non-Muslims. (The situation of the Jews was normal, because they had trading houses that the Turks needed). Their Christian subjects were Slavs (Bulgarians, Serbs, Armenians) and Greeks. For these oppressions, Christians fiercely hated the Turks. There were constant uprisings and unrest. Many Greeks lived in Italy and Russia. The Turks were hated and Muslims who were not Turks often fought with them. The Turks always won in court. Arabs and Kurds, who were Muslims, often fought with the Turks. This discord and mutual hatred constantly weakened the empire. In the 19th century some began to free themselves from the Turkish yoke and no longer obeyed the Sultan (Greek uprising of 1821, the Greeks became independent). Egypt separated. The Ottoman Empire was declining; it seemed that nothing could save it.

2. In the 18th century. It became clear to the ruling elite of Turkey that changes were needed, as the state was weakening, corruption was growing and the Turks even began to suffer military defeats from their neighbors.

Sultan Selim 3 at the end of the 18th century. started these reforms. They were not very broad and were aimed at strengthening the army. New military manufactories were built. The fleet was strengthened. Those who did not perform military service were deprived of the right to receive timars (land plots from which taxes were collected), but the reforms caused a lot of discontent in the Turkish army, especially among the Janissaries. They overthrew the Sultan, then killed him. The Sultan was also a caliph, i.e. had the title of the Muslim community.

The Sultan's successors understood that the Janissaries had to be put in their place, otherwise nothing could be done.

Sultan Mahmud 2 very thoroughly prepared for the fight against the Janissaries, in 1826. he managed to deal with them. By this time, the Sultan had pulled up specially trained units in the capital and secretly positioned them in the surrounding area. And then his entourage provoked a revolt of the Janissaries. The angry Janissaries rushed to the center of Istanbul to the Sultan's palace, but there were pre-camouflaged cannons there, which they moved against the rebels and began to shoot them. The revolt resembles in appearance the Decembrist uprising. Those who did not have time to be shot were immediately killed, hanged, dealt with mercilessly, the Janissary corps was almost completely destroyed. Thus began the reforms of Sultan Mahmud II.

Only 13 years later, in 1839. reforms were continued. They lasted until the early 70s. These reforms were called Tanzimat (“transformations”). These reforms still have no clear assessment. Previously, it was believed that they were unsuccessful and not wealthy. Recently, these reforms have been rated higher, especially among orientalists.

The Sultan declared that he guaranteed the property of all subjects of the empire, not only Turks, not only Muslims. It was a declaration. This was not always done. But this was already a responsible statement, it was a step towards recognizing the rights of the oppressed peoples of the Ottoman Empire. A fair call was established for military service, limited to 5 years. Those who performed their service poorly were removed from their posts. Secular education developed. Technical disciplines were studied, and even a university appeared. Some restrictions on trade and business activities were lifted: guild regulation of artisans was abolished. Invitation of foreign specialists: military advisers, engineers and doctors. The results of this policy are assessed differently. The crisis has been eased. The situation did not improve for Muslims, but not for all, but only for the most prosperous - the Greek commercial bourgeoisie. But the reforms could not radically change the entire situation. Reforms are a building that is erected on a completely shaky foundation.

3. By the beginning of the 19th century. The military and political power of the Ottoman Empire was greatly weakened. In its development, it lagged noticeably behind its European neighbors, and this affected. Russian Emperor Nicholas 1 compared the Ottoman Empire to a sick man. If the empire collapsed, the question arose who would receive the Ottoman inheritance. This was the essence of the Eastern question. The Great Powers were not interested in the rapid collapse of the empire because it could create difficulties with the liberated peoples, who could rebel. Therefore, they delayed the process of collapse of the Ottoman Empire; a weak empire was quite convenient than 10 independent states. There were differences between Russia and all other states in their approach to the “Eastern Question”. As one of the Austrian emperors noted: “I would like to see better Janissary turbans in Constantinople than Cossack hats.” In other words, the Western powers were afraid of Russia's excessive strengthening in this matter. They wanted to use the Ottoman Empire as a counterweight to Russian power. All this was clearly demonstrated during the Crimean War. It began as a war between the Russian and Ottoman empires. Then Great Britain and France got involved. These countries used the support to their advantage. They increasingly penetrated into the Turkish economy and participated in the internal affairs of the Ottomans. France has been using it since the 18th century. surrender mode. These were unilateral concessions that the sultans granted to Western participants in the Turkish market. Western empires were created in 1881. Office of the Ottoman public debt. This department was created under the pretext of the insolvency of the Sultan's government, because it was bad at repaying debts. The department began to operate on Turkish territory itself, using internal Turkish taxes.

4. In 1876 Abdul-Hamid 2 became the sultan of the empire. His reign lasted more than 30 years.

At the beginning of his reign, he granted his subjects the first constitution in history. He took this step to impress his allies that Turkey is also one of the legal European states. But the real policy of the Sultan came into increasingly conflict with the declarations of the constitution. The subjects themselves called this policy “zulum” (“oppression”). It was a regime of surveillance, denunciation and intimidation. The Sultan even established a kind of informers who sent their reports to the Sultan. These reports were called "journals". Turkish society experienced increasing Turkification and Islamization. At this time, the Turks moved from the outskirts of the empire to its center, to the peninsula of Asia Minor, because Türkiye was losing its positions on the outskirts. For the second half of the 19th century. up to 5 million people moved. Greeks, Armenians, and partly Slavs, on the contrary, left central areas empire, there were about a million of them. They went to Russia, Europe and North America.

A new phenomenon is pan-Turkism. This idea of ​​uniting all Turkic peoples under the rule of the Turkish Sultan. In 1910 they began to publish their own magazine. The ideologist of the movement was Ziya Gok Alg. They advocated the unity of those peoples who lived on the territory of the Russian Empire: Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, etc. This movement could not be approved by the Islamic tradition, because she valued ethnic solidarity above religious solidarity.

Under the reign of Sultan Hamid, currents opposing him appeared - the Young Turks. They were a liberal and pro-Western organization. They talk about order and progress. Under conditions of political oppression, the Young Turks were forced to exist illegally. Therefore, the Young Turks used Masonic lodges for their activities. Through their brothers in the west they received material assistance. They were associated with Italian lodges. By joining these lodges, from the point of view of Islam, they committed a terrible sin. The Young Turks were also helped by the fact that Abdul Hamid created many enemies for himself, even outside Turkey itself. The European powers feared that Turkey would strengthen and that the Sultan would become completely independent. Hamid at the beginning of the 20th century. became closer to Germany. Hamid also quarreled with the Jews.

By the end of the 19th century. - Zionist movement for the return of Jews to Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state there. Their leader Theodor Herzl twice appealed to the Sultan to allow the return of Jews to Palestine. The Sultan actually introduced “red passports” for Jews, which made it difficult for them to move around the country.

Start

Transformation of the Ottoman Empire from a tiny state in Asia Minor in the mid-15th century to greatest empire in Europe and the Middle East by the mid-16th century was dramatic. In less than a century, the Ottoman dynasty destroyed Byzantium and became the undisputed leaders of the Islamic world, wealthy patrons of a sovereign culture, and rulers of an empire stretching from the Atlas Mountains to the Caspian Sea. The key point This elevation is considered to be the capture in 1453 by Mehmed 2 of the capital of Byzantium - Constantinople, the capture of which turned the Ottoman state into a powerful power.

History of the Ottoman Empire in chronological order

The 1515 peace treaty concluded with Persia allowed the Ottomans to gain the regions of Diyarbakir and Mosul (which were located on the upper reaches of the Tigris River).

Also, between 1516 and 1520, Sultan Selim 1 (reigned 1512 - 1520) expelled the Safivids from Kurdistan and also destroyed the Mameluke power. Selim, with the help of artillery, defeated the Mameluke army at Dolbec and took Damascus; he subsequently subjugated the territory of Syria, took possession of Mecca and Medina.

S ultan Selim 1

Selim then approached Cairo. Having no other opportunity to capture Cairo except by a long and bloody struggle, for which his army was not prepared, he offered the inhabitants of the city to surrender in exchange for various favors; the residents gave up. Immediately the Turks carried out a terrible massacre in the city. After the conquest of the Holy Places, Mecca and Medina, Selim proclaimed himself caliph. He appointed a pasha to rule Egypt, but left next to him 24 rains of Mamelukes (who were considered subordinate to the pasha, but had limited independence with the ability to complain about the pasha to the Sultan).

Selim is one of the cruel sultans of the Ottoman Empire. Execution of their relatives (the Sultan’s father and brothers were executed on his orders); repeated executions of countless prisoners captured during military campaigns; executions of nobles.

The capture of Syria and Egypt from the Mamelukes made Ottoman territories an integral part of a vast network of overland caravan routes from Morocco to Beijing. At one end of this trade network were the spices, medicines, silks and, later, porcelain of the East; on the other - gold dust, slaves, precious stones and other goods from Africa, as well as textiles, glass, hardware, wood from Europe.

The struggle between Ottoman and Europe

The reaction of Christian Europe to the rapid rise of the Turks was contradictory. Venice sought to maintain as large a share as possible in trade with the Levant - even ultimately at the expense of its own territory, and King Francis 1 of France openly entered into an alliance with (reigned 1520 - 1566) against the Austrian Habsburgs.

The Reformation and the subsequent Counter-Reformation led to the fact that they helped the slogan of the Crusades, which once united all of Europe against Islam, to become a thing of the past.

After his victory at Mohács in 1526, Suleiman 1 reduced Hungary to the status of his vassal and captured a significant part of European territories - from Croatia to the Black Sea. The Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1529 was lifted more because of the winter cold and the long distances that made it difficult to supply the army from Turkey than because of Habsburg opposition. Ultimately, the Turks' entry into the long religious war with Safavid Persia saved Habsburg Central Europe.

The peace treaty of 1547 assigned the entire south of Hungary to the Ottoman Empire until Ofen was turned into an Ottoman province, divided into 12 sanjaks. Ottoman rule in Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania was consolidated by peace from 1569. The reason for such peace conditions was the large amount of money that was given by Austria to bribe Turkish nobles. The war between the Turks and the Venetians ended in 1540. The Ottomans were given the last territories of Venice in Greece and on the islands in the Aegean Sea. The war with the Persian Empire also bore fruit. The Ottomans took Baghdad (1536) and occupied Georgia (1553). This was the dawn of the power of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire's fleet sailed unhindered in the Mediterranean.

The Christian-Turkish border on the Danube reached a kind of equilibrium after the death of Suleiman. In the Mediterranean, the Turkish conquest of the northern coast of Africa was facilitated by the naval victory at Preveza, but initially successful offensive Emperor Charles 5 in Tunisia in 1535 and the extremely important Christian victory at Lepanto in 1571 restored the status quo: rather conventionally, the maritime border ran along a line running through Italy, Sicily and Tunisia. However, the Turks managed to restore their fleet in a short time.

Equilibrium time

Despite endless wars, trade between Europe and the Levant was never completely suspended. European merchant ships continued to arrive in Iskenderun or Tripoli, in Syria, in Alexandria. Cargoes were transported across the Ottoman and Saphivid Empires in caravans that were carefully organized, safe, regular, and often faster than European ships. The same caravan system brought Asian goods to Europe from Mediterranean ports. Until the mid-17th century, this trade flourished, enriching the Ottoman Empire and guaranteeing the Sultan's exposure to European technology.

Mehmed 3 (ruled 1595 - 1603) upon his accession executed 27 of his relatives, but he was not a bloodthirsty sultan (the Turks gave him the nickname the Just). But in reality, the empire was led by his mother, with the support of great viziers, often replacing each other. The period of his reign coincided with the war against Austria, which began under the previous Sultan Murad 3 in 1593 and ended in 1606, during the era of Ahmed 1 (reigned from 1603 to 1617). The Peace of Zsitvatorok in 1606 marked a turning point in relation to the Ottoman Empire and Europe. According to it, Austria was not subject to new tribute; on the contrary, it was freed from the previous one. Only a one-time payment of indemnity in the amount of 200,000 florins. From this moment on, the Ottoman lands did not increase anymore.

Beginning of decline

The most costly of the wars between the Turks and Persians broke out in 1602. Reorganized and re-equipped Persian armies regained lands captured by the Turks in the previous century. The war ended with the peace treaty of 1612. The Turks ceded the eastern lands of Georgia and Armenia, Karabakh, Azerbaijan and some other lands.

After the plague and severe economic crisis, the Ottoman Empire was weakened. Political instability (due to the lack of a clear tradition of succession to the title of Sultan, as well as due to the increasingly growing influence of the Janissaries (initially the highest military caste, into which children were selected mainly from Balkan Christians according to the so-called devshirme system (forcible abduction of Christian children to Istanbul , for military service)) was shaking the country.

During the reign of Sultan Murad 4 (reigned 1623 - 1640) (a cruel tyrant (approximately 25 thousand people were executed during his reign), a capable administrator and commander, the Ottomans managed to regain part of the territories in the war with Persia (1623 - 1639), and defeat the Venetians. However, the uprisings of the Crimean Tatars and the constant raids of the Cossacks on Turkish lands practically drove the Turks out of Crimea and the adjacent territories.

After the death of Murad 4, the empire began to lag behind the countries of Europe in technology, wealth, and political unity.

Under Murad IV's brother, Ibrahim (ruled 1640 - 1648), all of Murad's conquests were lost.

The attempt to capture the island of Crete (the last possession of the Venetians in Eastern Mediterranean). The Venetian fleet, having blocked the Dardanelles, threatened Istanbul.

Sultan Ibrahim was removed by the Janissaries, and his seven-year-old son Mehmed 4 (reigned 1648 - 1687) was elevated to his place. Under his rule, a number of reforms began to be carried out in the Ottoman Empire, which stabilized the situation.

Mehmed was able to successfully complete the war with the Venetians. The position of the Turks in the Balkans and Eastern Europe was also strengthened.

The decline of the Ottoman Empire was a slow process, punctuated by short periods of recovery and stability.

The Ottoman Empire alternately waged wars with Venice, Austria, and Russia.

Towards the end of the 17th century, economic and social difficulties began to increase.

Decline

Mehmed's successor, Kara Mustafa, launched a final challenge to Europe by laying siege to Vienna in 1683.

The answer to this was the alliance of Poland and Austria. The combined Polish-Austrian forces, approaching besieged Vienna, were able to defeat the Turkish army and force it to flee.

Later, Venice and Russia joined the Polish-Austrian coalition.

In 1687, the Turkish armies were defeated at Mohács. After the defeat, the Janissaries rebelled. Mehmed 4 was deposed. His brother Suleiman 2 (ruled 1687 - 1691) became the new sultan.

The war continued. In 1688, the armies of the anti-Turkish coalition achieved serious successes (the Venetians captured the Peloponnese, the Austrians were able to take Belgrade).

However, in 1690, the Turks managed to drive the Austrians out of Belgrade and push them beyond the Danube, as well as regain Transylvania. But, in the Battle of Slankamen, Sultan Suleiman 2 was killed.

Ahmed 2, brother of Suleiman 2, (ruled 1691 - 1695) also did not live to see the end of the war.

After the death of Ahmed 2, the second brother of Suleiman 2, Mustafa 2 (ruled 1695 - 1703), became the sultan. With him the end of the war came. Azov was taken by the Russians, Turkish forces were defeated in the Balkans.

Unable to continue the war any longer, Türkiye signed the Treaty of Karlowitz. According to it, the Ottomans ceded Hungary and Transylvania to Austria, Podolia to Poland, and Azov to Russia. Only the War between Austria and France preserved the European possessions of the Ottoman Empire.

The decline of the empire's economy was accelerated. Monopolization of trade in the Mediterranean Sea and oceans practically destroyed the trading opportunities of the Turks. The seizure of new colonies by European powers in Africa and Asia made the trade route through Turkish territories unnecessary. The discovery and development of Siberia by the Russians gave merchants a way to China.

Türkiye ceased to be interesting from the point of view of economics and trade

True, the Turks were able to achieve temporary success in 1711, after the unsuccessful Prut campaign of Peter 1. According to the new peace treaty, Russia returned Azov to Turkey. They were also able to recapture the Morea from Venice in the war of 1714 - 1718 (this was due to the military-political situation in Europe (the War of the Spanish Succession and the Northern War were going on).

However, then a series of setbacks began for the Turks. A series of defeats after 1768 deprived the Turks of the Crimea, and a defeat in the naval battle at Chesme Bay deprived the Turks of their fleet.

By the end of the 18th century, the peoples of the empire began to fight for their independence (Greeks, Egyptians, Bulgarians, ...). The Ottoman Empire ceased to be one of the leading European powers.

At the beginning of the 17th century, the decline of the Ottoman Empire began, and by the end of the 18th century it had lost its former greatness.

Financial crisis of the empire

At the end of the 16th century, the heirs of Suleiman I spent more and more time in their harems, doing little about state affairs. Officials of the Sublime Porte began to distribute land with villages not to militia soldiers, but to their relatives and friends. They slowly declared them private possessions and refused to send soldiers to the Sultan’s army. As a result, by the end of the 17th century, the sultans could gather only 20 thousand horsemen under their banners instead of 200. The weakened army could no longer conquer new lands, campaigns no longer brought significant booty. To supplement their incomes, militia soldiers began to move into villages and arbitrarily increase taxes from farmers, drive them off the land, and turn them into serfs.

At the same time, the expenses of the palace grew, in which about 12 thousand wives, concubines, servants and guards lived and fed. Among them were even the guardians of the turban and fur coat of the Sultan, the guards of the nightingale and the Sultan’s parrot. The Sultan's income declined. Most “oriental goods” were now transported to Europe across the oceans, bypassing Turkey. When in 1595 Sultan Murad III (who loved gold so much that he slept right in his treasury) did not care about a good salary for the Janissaries, they broke into the palace and removed him from the throne. When in 1622 Sultan Osman II tried to deprive the Janissaries of their special position in the capital, indignant soldiers seized the palace, threw the Sultan into the prison of the Seven Tower Castle, where he was soon strangled with a silk cord.

Repression of Christians (non-Muslims)

To pay the salaries of the Janissaries and numerous officials, the sultans were forced to increase taxes on non-Muslim subjects by 5 times, and they began to demand them even from infants! Many governors in the Balkans collected more taxes for themselves than for the Sultan's treasury. Attempts to complain to the central government of the Porte ended with the governors paying off with bribes, and Christian complainants also paying for the visit of an inspection official. Christians were forbidden to carry weapons and clothing similar to Muslim ones. In government documents, Christian subjects were called “cattle,” and each Janissary received the right to kill and take the money of any suspicious Christian.

Christian uprisings

In response, the Orthodox peoples of the Balkan Peninsula began to fight for liberation from the rule of the Ottomans. Despite Turkish rule, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, and Moldovans managed to preserve their languages ​​and culture. Books and leaflets calling for the fight for freedom are being distributed in cities. Small ones pile up in the mountains independent states, like Serbian Principality of Montenegro. In the valleys there are scattered detachments of people's avengers - haidukov- from fugitive peasants and townspeople. From the end of the 16th to the end of the 18th century, uprisings broke out in all Christian possessions, but Turkish troops brutally suppressed them. Material from the site

Loss of land and dependence on other countries

The Ottoman army weakened. Turkish militia horsemen often fled from the battlefield, headstrong Janissaries allowed themselves to discuss orders, artillery had not changed since the 16th century. Gradually, Austria conquered part of the Danube and Balkan provinces from the Turks, and Russia conquered the Northern Black Sea region. The Sultan officially recognized the Russian sovereign as the patron of the Orthodox peoples living in Turkey. The Russian ambassador had the right to protect Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs from the Turkish authorities, and to help those who wished to leave for Russia. Needing money, the sultans began to allow the French and British to establish trading posts in the empire. By special agreements — "capitulations" - European merchants were not actually subordinate to the Sultan. By receiving large duties, the sultans put European merchants in a more advantageous position than their own. The opinion of the Porte government increasingly began to depend on tips from the English and French ambassadors.

Attempts at reform under Selim III

Attempts to strengthen Turkey were made at the end of the 18th century under Sultan Selim III (1789-1807). While still a young man, he was interested in European reforms, military sciences and art. Already in 1793, Selim ordered the construction of barracks and training grounds for military exercises. To develop the Turkish artillery and navy, Selim began to invite European engineers and instructors. A land engineering school was opened. The research of European scientists in the field of mathematics, military affairs and other branches of science began to appear more and more often, translated into Turkish. However, the Janissaries, excited by the appearance of new troops, rebelled. Following them, Islamic preachers began to talk about the incompatibility of reforms with the Koran and the principles of Sharia. In this situation, Selim was forced to abdicate the throne.

Questions about this material: