By the end of the 15th century, the Ottoman state, as a result of the aggressive policy of the Turkish sultans and military-feudal nobility, turned into a vast feudal empire. It included Asia Minor, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina and vassal Moldavia, Wallachia and the Crimean Khanate.
The plunder of the wealth of the conquered countries, along with the exploitation of their own and conquered peoples, contributed to the further growth of the military power of the Turkish conquerors. Many seekers of profit and adventure flocked to the Turkish sultans, who carried out a policy of conquest in the interests of the military-feudal nobility, calling themselves “ghazi” (fighter for the faith). Feudal fragmentation, feudal and religious strife that took place in the countries of the Balkan Peninsula favored the implementation of the aspirations of the Turkish conquerors, who did not encounter united and organized resistance. Capturing one region after another, the Turkish conquerors used the material resources of the conquered peoples to organize new campaigns. With the help of Balkan craftsmen, they created strong artillery, which significantly increased the military power of the Turkish army. As a result of all this Ottoman Empire to the 16th century turned into a powerful military power, whose army soon inflicted a crushing defeat on the rulers of the Safavid state and the Mamluks of Egypt in the East and, having defeated the Czechs and Hungarians, approached the walls of Vienna in the West.
The 16th century in the history of the Ottoman Empire is characterized by continuous aggressive wars in the West and in the East, the intensification of the offensive of the Turkish feudal lords against the peasant masses and the fierce resistance of the peasantry, which repeatedly rose up in arms against feudal oppression.
Turkish conquests in the East
As in the previous period, the Turks, using their military advantage, pursued an offensive policy. At the beginning of the 16th century. The main objects of the aggressive policy of the Turkish feudal lords were Iran, Armenia, Kurdistan and Arab countries.
In the battle of 1514 at Chapdiran, the Turkish army led by Sultan Selim I, which had strong artillery, defeated the army of the Safavid state. Having captured Tabriz, Selim I took out huge military booty from there, including the personal treasury of Shah Ismail, and also sent a thousand of the best Iranian craftsmen to Istanbul for serving the court and Turkish nobility. Iranian craftsmen brought to Iznik at that time laid the foundation for the production of colored ceramics in Turkey, which was used in the construction of palaces and mosques in Istanbul, Bursa and other cities.
In 1514-1515, Turkish conquerors conquered Eastern Armenia, Kurdistan and Northern Mesopotamia up to and including Mosul.
During the campaigns of 1516-1517. Sultan Selim I sent his armies against Egypt, which was under the rule of the Mamluks, who also owned Syria and part of Arabia. The victory over the Mamluk army gave all of Syria and Hejaz, along with the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina, into the hands of the Ottomans. In 1517, Ottoman troops conquered Egypt. Modest war booty in the form of precious utensils and the treasury of local rulers was sent to Istanbul.
As a result of the victory over the Mamluks, the Turkish conquerors acquired control over the most important shopping centers in the Mediterranean and Red Seas. Cities such as Diyarbakir, Aleppo (Aleppo), Mosul, Damascus were turned into strongholds of Turkish rule. Strong Janissary garrisons were soon stationed here and placed at the disposal of the Sultan's governors. They carried out military and police service, guarding the borders of the Sultan's new possessions. The named cities were also the centers of the Turkish civil administration, which mainly collected and recorded taxes from the population of the province and other revenues to the treasury. The collected funds were sent annually to Istanbul to the court.
Wars of conquest of the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Suleiman Kanuni
The Ottoman Empire reached its greatest power by the middle of the 16th century. under Sultan Suleiman I (1520-1566), called the Lawgiver (Kanuni) by the Turks. For his numerous military victories and the luxury of his court, this sultan received the name Suleiman the Magnificent from the Europeans. In the interests of the nobility, Suleiman I sought to expand the territory of the empire not only in the East, but also in Europe. Having captured Belgrade in 1521, the Turkish conquerors undertook throughout 1526-1543. five campaigns against Hungary. After the victory at Mohács in 1526, the Turks suffered a serious defeat in 1529 near Vienna. But this did not free Southern Hungary from Turkish domination. Soon Central Hungary was captured by the Turks. In 1543, the part of Hungary conquered by the Turks was divided into 12 regions and transferred to the management of the Sultan's governor.
The conquest of Hungary, like other countries, was accompanied by the robbery of its cities and villages, which contributed to the even greater enrichment of the Turkish military-feudal elite.
Suleiman alternated campaigns against Hungary with military campaigns in other directions. In 1522, the Turks captured the island of Rhodes. In 1534, Turkish conquerors launched a devastating invasion of the Caucasus. Here they captured Shirvan and Western Georgia. Having also captured coastal Arabia, they reached the Persian Gulf through Baghdad and Basra. At the same time, the Mediterranean Turkish fleet drove the Venetians out of most of the islands of the Aegean archipelago, and on the northern coast of Africa Tripoli and Algeria were annexed to Turkey.
In the second half of the 16th century. The Ottoman feudal empire spread over three continents: from Budapest and Northern Taurus to the northern coast of Africa, from Baghdad and Tabriz to the borders of Morocco. The Black and Marmara Seas became the internal basins of the Ottoman Empire. Vast territories of South-Eastern Europe, Western Asia and North Africa were thus forcibly included within the borders of the empire.
The Turkish invasions were accompanied by the brutal destruction of cities and villages, the plunder of material and cultural values, and the abduction of hundreds of thousands of civilians into slavery. For the Balkan, Caucasian, Arab and other peoples who fell under the Turkish yoke, they were a historical catastrophe that delayed the process of their economic and cultural development for a long time. At the same time, the aggressive policy of the Turkish feudal lords had extremely negative consequences for the Turkish people themselves. By promoting the enrichment of only the feudal nobility, it strengthened the latter's economic and political power over its own people. The Turkish feudal lords and their state, depleting and ruining the country's productive forces, doomed the Turkish people to lag in economic and cultural development.
Agrarian system
In the 16th century In the Ottoman Empire, developed feudal relations were dominant. Feudal ownership of land came in several forms. Until the end of the 16th century, most of the land of the Ottoman Empire was state property, and its supreme administrator was the Sultan. However, only part of these lands was under the direct control of the treasury. A significant part of the state land fund consisted of the possessions (domain) of the Sultan himself - the best lands in Bulgaria, Thrace, Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. The income from these lands went entirely to the personal disposal of the Sultan and for the maintenance of his court. Many regions of Anatolia (for example, Amasya, Kayseri, Tokat, Karaman, etc.) were also the property of the Sultan and his family - sons and other close relatives.
The Sultan distributed state lands to feudal lords for hereditary ownership on the terms of military fief tenure. Owners of small and large fiefs (“timars” - with an income of up to 3 thousand akche and “zeamets” - from 3 thousand to 100 thousand akche) were obliged, at the call of the Sultan, to appear to participate in campaigns at the head of the required number of equipped horsemen (in according to the income received). These lands served as the basis of the economic power of the feudal lords and the most important source of the military power of the state.
From the same fund of state lands, the Sultan distributed land to court and provincial dignitaries, the income from which (they were called khasses, and the income from them was determined in the amount of 100 thousand akche and above) went entirely to the maintenance of state dignitaries in return for salaries. Each dignitary enjoyed the income from the lands provided to him only as long as he retained his post.
In the 16th century the owners of Timars, Zeamets and Khass usually lived in cities and did not run their own households. They collected feudal duties from the peasants sitting on the land with the help of stewards and tax collectors, and often tax farmers.
Another form of feudal land ownership was the so-called waqf possessions. This category included huge areas of land that were fully owned by mosques and various other religious and charitable institutions. These land holdings represented the economic base of the strongest political influence of the Muslim clergy in the Ottoman Empire.
The category of private feudal property included the lands of feudal lords, who received special Sultan's letters for any merit for the unlimited right to dispose of the estates provided. This category of feudal land ownership (called "mulk") arose in the Ottoman state at an early stage of its formation. Despite the fact that the number of mulks was constantly increasing, their share was small until the end of the 16th century.
Peasant land use and the position of the peasantry
Lands of all categories of feudal property were in the hereditary use of the peasantry. Throughout the territory of the Ottoman Empire, peasants living on the lands of feudal lords were included in the scribe books called raya (raya, reaya) and were obliged to cultivate the plots allocated to them. The attachment of rayats to their plots was recorded in laws at the end of the 15th century. During the 16th century. There was a process of enslavement of the peasantry throughout the empire, and in the second half of the 16th century. Suleiman's law finally approved the attachment of peasants to the land. The law stated that the rayat was obliged to live on the land of the feudal lord in whose register it was entered. In the event that a raiyat voluntarily left the plot allotted to him and moved to the land of another feudal lord, the previous owner could find him within 15-20 years and force him to return back, also imposing a fine on him.
While cultivating the plots allotted to them, the peasant rayats bore numerous feudal duties in favor of the land owner. In the 16th century In the Ottoman Empire, all three forms of feudal rent existed - labor, food and cash. The most common was rent in products. Raya Muslims were required to pay tithes on grain, garden and garden crops, tax on all types of livestock, as well as perform fodder duties. The landowner had the right to punish and fine those who were guilty. In some areas, peasants also had to work several days a year for the landowner in the vineyard, building a house, delivering firewood, straw, hay, bringing him all kinds of gifts, etc.
All the duties listed above were also required to be performed by non-Muslim rayas. But in addition, they paid a special poll tax to the treasury - jizya from the male population, and in some areas of the Balkan Peninsula they were also obliged to supply boys for the Janissary army every 3-5 years. The last duty (the so-called devshirme), which served the Turkish conquerors as one of the many means of forcible assimilation of the conquered population, was especially difficult and humiliating for those who were obliged to fulfill it.
In addition to all the duties that the rayats performed in favor of their landowners, they also had to perform a number of special military duties (called “avaris”) directly for the benefit of the treasury. Collected in the form of labor, various kinds of natural supplies, and often in cash, these so-called Diwan taxes were more numerous the more wars the Ottoman Empire waged. Thus, the settled agricultural peasantry in the Ottoman Empire bore the main burden of maintaining the ruling class and the entire huge state and military machine of the feudal empire.
A significant part of the population of Asia Minor continued to lead the life of nomads, united in tribal or clan unions. Submitting to the head of the tribe, who was a vassal of the Sultan, the nomads were considered military. In wartime, cavalry detachments were formed from them, which, led by their military leaders, were supposed to appear at the first call of the Sultan to a specified place. Among the nomads, every 25 men formed a “hearth”, which was supposed to send five “next” ones from their midst on a campaign, providing them at their own expense with horses, weapons and food during the entire campaign. For this, nomads were exempt from paying taxes to the treasury. But as the importance of the captive cavalry increased, the duties of the detachments made up of nomads increasingly began to be limited to performing auxiliary work: the construction of roads, bridges, baggage service, etc. The main places of settlement of the nomads were the southeastern and southern regions of Anatolia, as well as some areas of Macedonia and Southern Bulgaria.
In the laws of the 16th century. traces of the unlimited right of nomads to move with their herds in any direction remained: “Pasture lands have no boundaries. Since ancient times, it has been established that where cattle go, let them wander in that place. Since ancient times, it has been incompatible with the law to sell and cultivate established pastures. If someone forcibly cultivates them, they should be turned back into pastures. Village residents have no connection with pastures and therefore cannot prohibit anyone from roaming them.”
Pastures, like other lands of the empire, could be the property of the state, clergy, or private individual. They were owned by feudal lords, which included the leaders of nomadic tribes. In all these cases, the exercise of ownership of land or the right to possess it belonged to the person in whose favor the corresponding taxes and fees were collected from the nomads who passed through his lands. These taxes and fees represented feudal rent for the right to use land.
Nomads were not attributed to the owners of the land and did not have individual plots. They used the pasture land together, as communities. If the owner or proprietor of pasture lands was not at the same time the head of a tribe or clan, he could not interfere in the internal affairs of nomadic communities, since they were subordinate only to their tribal or clan leaders.
The nomadic community as a whole was economically dependent on the feudal owners of the land, but each individual member of the nomadic community was economically and legally dependent completely on his community, which was bound by mutual responsibility and dominated by tribal leaders and military leaders. Traditional clan ties covered social differentiation within nomadic communities. Only the nomads who broke ties with the community, settling on the land, turned into rayats, already attached to their plots. However, the process of settling the nomads on the land occurred extremely slowly, since they, trying to preserve the community as a means of self-defense from oppression by landowners, stubbornly resisted all attempts to speed up this process by violent measures.
Administrative and military-political structure
Political system, administrative structure and military organization of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century. were reflected in the legislation of Suleiman Kanuni. The Sultan controlled all the income of the empire and its armed forces. Through the great vizier and the head of the Muslim clergy - Sheikh-ul-Islam, who, together with other high secular and spiritual dignitaries, formed the Diwan (council of dignitaries), he ruled the country. The office of the Grand Vizier was called the Sublime Porte.
The entire territory of the Ottoman Empire was divided into provinces, or governorates (eyalets). At the head of the eyalets were governors appointed by the Sultan - beyler beys, who kept all the fief rulers of a given province with their feudal militia under their subordination. They were obliged to go to war personally, leading these troops. Each eyalet was divided into regions called sanjaks. At the head of the sanjak was the sanjak bey, who had the same rights as the beyler bey, but only within his region. He was subordinate to the Beyler Bey. The feudal militia, supplied by the fief holders, represented the main military force of the empire in the 16th century. Under Suleiman Kanuchi, the number of feudal militia reached 200 thousand people.
The main representative of the civil administration in the province was the qadi, who was in charge of all civil and judicial affairs in the district under his jurisdiction, called “kaza”. The borders of the kazy usually, apparently, coincided with the border of the sanjak. Therefore, the kediyas and sanjak beys had to act in concert. However, the qadis were appointed by Sultan's decree and reported directly to Istanbul.
The Janissary army was on government pay and was staffed by Christian youths, who at the age of 7-12 were forcibly taken away from their parents, brought up in the spirit of Muslim fanaticism in Turkish families in Anatolia, and then in schools in Istanbul or Edirne (Adrianople). This is an army whose strength in the middle of the 16th century. reached 40 thousand people, was a serious striking force in the Turkish conquests, it was especially important as a garrison guard in the most important cities and fortresses of the empire, primarily on the Balkan Peninsula and in the Arab countries, where there was always the danger of popular indignation against the Turkish yoke.
From the middle of the 15th and especially in the 16th century. Turkish sultans paid great attention to creating their own navy. Using Venetian and other foreign specialists, they created a significant galley and sailing fleet, which, with constant corsair raids, undermined normal trade in the Mediterranean Sea and was a serious opponent of the Venetian and Spanish naval forces.
The internal military-political organization of the state, which responded primarily to the tasks of maintaining a huge military machine, with the help of which conquests were carried out in the interests of the class of Turkish feudal lords, made the Ottoman Empire, in the words of K. Marx, “the only truly military power of the Middle Ages.”( K. Marx, Chronological extracts, II “Archive of Marx and Engels”, vol. VI, p. 189.)
City, crafts and trade
In the conquered countries, the Turkish conquerors inherited numerous cities, in which a developed craft had long been established and a lively trade was conducted. After the conquest, major cities were turned into fortresses and centers of military and civil administration. Handicraft production, regulated and regulated by the state, was obliged primarily to serve the needs of the army, court and feudal lords. The most developed industries were those that produced fabrics, clothing, shoes, weapons, etc. for the Turkish army.
Urban artisans were united into guild corporations. No one had the right to work outside the workshop. The production of artisans was subject to the strictest regulation by the guilds. Craftsmen could not produce those products that were not provided for by the guild regulations. So, for example, in Bursa, where weaving production was concentrated, according to the workshop regulations, for each type of fabric it was allowed to use only certain types of threads, it was indicated what the width and length of the pieces should be, the color and quality of the fabric. Craftsmen were strictly prescribed places to sell products and purchase raw materials. They were not allowed to buy threads and other materials in excess of the established norm. No one could enter the workshop without a special test and without a special guarantee. Prices for handicraft products were also regulated.
Trade, like crafts, was regulated by the state. The laws established the number of shops in each market, the quantity and quality of goods sold and their prices. This regulation, state taxes and local feudal levies prevented the development of free trade within the empire, thereby restraining the growth of the social division of labor. The predominantly subsistence nature of peasant farming, in turn, limited the possibilities for the development of crafts and trade. In some places there were local markets where exchanges were made between peasants and townspeople, between sedentary farmers and nomadic herders. These markets operated once a week or twice a month, and sometimes less often.
The result of the Turkish conquests was a serious disruption of trade in the Mediterranean and Black Seas and a significant reduction in trade relations between Europe and the countries of the East.
However, the Ottoman Empire was not able to completely break the traditional trade ties between the East and the West. Turkish rulers benefited from the trade of Armenian, Greek and other merchants, collecting customs duties and market duties from them, which became a profitable item for the Sultan's treasury.
Venice, Genoa and Dubrovnik were interested in Levantine trade back in the 15th century. obtained permission from the Turkish sultans to conduct trade in the territory subject to the Ottomans. Foreign ships visited Istanbul, Izmir, Sinop, Trabzon, and Thessaloniki. However, the internal regions of Asia Minor remained almost completely uninvolved in trade relations with the outside world.
Slave markets existed in Istanbul, Edirne, in Anatolian cities and in Egypt, where an extensive slave trade was carried out. During their campaigns, the Turkish conquerors took tens of thousands of adults and children from the enslaved countries as prisoners, turning them into slaves. Slaves were widely used in the domestic life of Turkish feudal lords. Many girls ended up in the harems of the Sultan and the Turkish nobility.
Popular uprisings in Asia Minor in the first half of the 16th century.
Wars of the Turkish conquerors from the beginning of the 16th century. entailed an increase in the already numerous extortions, in particular extortions in favor of active armies, which passed in a continuous stream through the villages and cities of Asia Minor or were concentrated in them in preparation for new offensives against the Safavid state and Arab countries. The feudal rulers demanded more and more funds from the peasants to support their troops, and it was at this time that the treasury began to introduce emergency military taxes (avaris). All this led to an increase in popular discontent in Asia Minor. This discontent found expression not only in the anti-feudal protests of the Turkish peasantry and nomadic herders, but also in the liberation struggle of non-Turkish tribes and peoples, including residents of the eastern regions of Asia Minor - Kurds, Arabs, Armenians, etc.
In 1511-1512 Asia Minor was engulfed in a popular uprising led by Shah-kulu (or Shaitan-kulu). The uprising, despite the fact that it took place under religious Shiite slogans, was a serious attempt by the farmers and nomadic pastoralists of Asia Minor to provide armed resistance to the increase in feudal exploitation. Shah-kulu, proclaiming himself a “savior,” called for refusal to obey the Turkish Sultan. In battles with rebels in the Sivas and Kayseri regions, the Sultan's troops were repeatedly defeated.
Sultan Selim I led a fierce struggle against this uprising. Under the guise of Shiites, more than 40 thousand inhabitants were exterminated in Asia Minor. Everyone who could be suspected of disobedience to the Turkish feudal lords and the Sultan was declared Shiites.
In 1518, another major popular uprising broke out - under the leadership of the peasant Nur Ali. The center of the uprising was the areas of Karahisar and Niksar, from there it later spread to Amasya and Tokat. The rebels here also demanded the abolition of taxes and duties. After repeated battles with the Sultan's troops, the rebels scattered to the villages. But soon a new uprising, which arose in 1519 in the vicinity of Tokat, quickly spread throughout Central Anatolia. The number of rebels reached 20 thousand people. The leader of this uprising was one of the residents of Tokat, Jelal, after whom all such popular uprisings subsequently became known as “Jalali”.
Like previous uprisings, Celal's uprising was directed against the tyranny of the Turkish feudal lords, against countless duties and extortions, against the excesses of the Sultan's officials and tax collectors. Armed rebels captured Karahisar and headed towards Ankara.
To suppress this uprising, Sultan Selim I had to send significant military forces to Asia Minor. The rebels in the battle of Aksehir were defeated and scattered. Jalal fell into the hands of punitive forces and was brutally executed.
However, the reprisal against the rebels did not pacify the peasant masses for long. During 1525-1526 The eastern regions of Asia Minor up to Sivas were again engulfed in a peasant uprising, led by Koca Soglu-oglu and Zunnun-oglu. In 1526, an uprising led by Kalender Shah, numbering up to 30 thousand participants - Turks and Kurdish nomads, engulfed the Malatya region. Farmers and cattle breeders demanded not only a reduction in duties and taxes, but also the return of land and pastures that had been appropriated by the Sultan's treasury and distributed to Turkish feudal lords.
The rebels repeatedly defeated punitive detachments and were defeated only after a large Sultan's army was sent from Istanbul against them.
Peasant uprisings of the early 16th century. in Asia Minor testified to a sharp aggravation of the class struggle in Turkish feudal society. In the middle of the 16th century. A Sultan's decree was issued on the deployment of Janissary garrisons in the largest points of all provinces of the empire. With these measures and punitive expeditions, the Sultan's power managed to restore calm in Asia Minor for some time.
External relations
In the second half of the 16th century. The international importance of the Ottoman Empire, as one of the strongest powers, increased greatly. Its range of external relations has expanded. The Turkish sultans were active foreign policy, widely using not only military, but also diplomatic means to fight their opponents, primarily the Habsburg Empire, which faced the Turks in South-Eastern Europe.
In 1535 (according to other sources in 1536), the Ottoman Empire entered into an alliance treaty with France, which was interested in weakening the Habsburg Empire with the help of the Turks; At the same time, Sultan Suleiman I signed the so-called capitulations (chapters, articles) - a trade agreement with France, on the basis of which French merchants received, as a special favor of the Sultan, the right to freely trade in all his possessions. The alliance and trade agreements with France strengthened the position of the Ottoman Empire in the fight against the Habsburgs, so the Sultan did not skimp on benefits for the French. French merchants and French subjects in general in the Ottoman Empire enjoyed especially privileged conditions on the basis of capitulations.
France held in its hands almost all of the Ottoman Empire's trade with European countries until the beginning of the 17th century, when Holland and England managed to achieve similar rights for their subjects. Until then, English and Dutch merchants had to trade in Turkish possessions on ships flying the French flag.
Official relations between the Ottoman Empire and Russia began at the end of the 15th century, after the conquest of Crimea by Mehmed P. Having conquered Crimea, the Turks began to obstruct the trade of Russian merchants in Kafe (Feodosia) and Azov.
In 1497, Grand Duke Ivan III sent the first Russian ambassador, Mikhail Pleshcheev, to Istanbul with a complaint about the said harassment of Russian trade. Pleshcheev was given an order to “give a list of the oppressions inflicted on our guests in Turkish lands.” The Moscow government repeatedly protested against the devastating raids of the Crimean Tatars on Russian possessions. The Turkish sultans, through the Crimean Tatars, attempted to extend their rule north of the Black Sea coast. However, the struggle of the peoples of the Russian state against Turkish aggression and the defensive measures of the Russian authorities on the Don and Dnieper did not allow the Turkish conquerors and Crimean khans to carry out their aggressive plans.
Culture
The Muslim religion, which sanctified the domination of the Turkish feudal lords, left its mark on the science, literature and art of the Turks. Schools (madrassas) existed only at large mosques and served the purpose of educating clergy, theologians, and judges. The students of these schools sometimes produced scientists and poets with whom the Turkish sultans and dignitaries liked to surround themselves.
The end of the 15th and 16th centuries are considered the heyday, the “golden age” of Turkish classical poetry, which was strongly influenced by Persian poetry. From the latter, such poetic genres as qasida (ode of praise), ghazal (lyrical verse), as well as subjects and images were borrowed: traditional nightingale, rose, singing of wine, love, spring, etc. Famous poets of this time - Ham- di Celebi (1448-1509), Ahmed Pasha (died 1497), Nejati (1460-1509), poetess Mihri Khatun (died 1514), Mesihi (died 1512), Revani (died 1524), Ishak Chelebi (died 1537) - wrote mainly lyrical poems. The last poets of the “golden age” - Lyami (died 1531) and Baki (1526-1599) repeated the plots of classical poetry.
The 17th century in Turkish literature is called the “century of satire.” The poet Veysi (died 1628) wrote about the decline of morals (“Exhortation to Istanbul”, “Dream”), the poet Nefi (died 1635) for his cycle of satirical poems “Arrows of Fate”, in which evil was exposed not only know, but also the Sultan, paid with his life.
In the field of science, Katib Chelebi (Haji Khalife, 1609-1657) gained the greatest fame during this period with his works on history, geography, bio-bibliography, philosophy, etc. Thus, his works “Description of the World” (“Jihan-nyuma”), “Chronicle of Events” (“Fezleke”), a bio-bibliographic dictionary of Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Central Asian and other authors, containing information about 9512 authors, have not lost their value to this day. Valuable historical chronicles of events in the Ottoman Empire were compiled by Khoja Sadddin (died 1599), Mustafa Selyaniki (died 1599), Mustafa Aali (died 1599), Ibrahim Pechevi (died 1650) and other authors XVI and first half of the XVII centuries.
Political treatises by Aini Ali, Katib Chelebi, Kochibey and other authors of the 17th century. are the most valuable sources for the study of military-political and economic condition empire of the late 16th and first half of the 17th centuries. The famous traveler Evliya Celebi left a wonderful ten-volume description of his travels through the Ottoman Empire, southern Russia and Western Europe.
The art of construction was largely subject to the whims of the Turkish sultans and nobility. Every sultan and many major dignitaries considered it obligatory to mark the period of their reign by building a mosque, palace or some other structure. Many of the monuments of this kind that have survived to this day amaze with their splendor. Talented architect of the 16th century. Sinan built many different structures, including more than 80 mosques, of which the most architecturally significant are the Suleymaniye Mosque in Istanbul (1557) and the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne (1574).
Turkish architecture arose on the basis of local traditions in the conquered countries of the Balkan Peninsula and Western Asia. These traditions were varied, and the creators architectural style The Ottoman Empire primarily sought to unite them into something whole. Most important element This synthesis was the Byzantine architectural scheme, especially manifested in the Constantinople Church of St. Sofia.
The prohibition by Islam of depicting living beings had the consequence that Turkish art developed mainly as one of the branches of construction craftsmanship: wall painting in the form of floral and geometric ornaments, carving in wood, metal and stone, relief work in plaster, marble, mosaic work in stone, glass, etc. In this area, both forced A high degree of perfection was achieved by both resettled and Turkish craftsmen. The art of Turkish craftsmen in the field of decorating weapons with inlay, carving, notching in gold, silver, ivory, etc. is also known. However, the religious prohibition of depicting living beings was often violated; for example, in many cases miniatures were used to decorate manuscripts, depicting both people and animals.
The art of calligraphy has reached high perfection in Turkey. Inscriptions from the Koran were also widely used to decorate the walls of palaces and mosques.
Beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire
By the end of the 16th century, at a time when strong centralized states, in the vast and multi-tribal Ottoman Empire, internal economic and political ties not only did not strengthen, but, on the contrary, began to weaken. The anti-feudal movements of the peasantry and the struggle of non-Turkish peoples for their liberation reflected irreconcilable internal contradictions that the Sultan’s government was unable to overcome. The consolidation of the empire was also hampered by the fact that the central region of the empire - economically backward Anatolia - did not and could not become a center of economic and political gravity for the conquered peoples.
As commodity-money relations developed, the interest of feudal lords in increasing the profitability of their military fief possessions increased. They began to arbitrarily turn these conditional possessions into their own property. Military fiefs began to evade the obligation to maintain detachments for the Sultan and to participate in military campaigns, and began to appropriate income from fief possessions. At the same time, a struggle began between individual feudal groups for the possession of land, for its concentration. As a contemporary wrote, “among them there are people who have 20-30 and even 40-50 zeamet and timar, the fruits of which they devour.” This led to the fact that state ownership of land began to weaken and gradually lose its significance, and the military-feudal system began to disintegrate. Feudal separatism intensified. At the end of the 16th century, undoubted signs of a weakening of the Sultan's power appeared.
The extravagance of the sultans and their courtiers required enormous funds. A significant share of state revenues was absorbed by the continuously growing bureaucratic military-administrative and financial apparatus of the state in the center and in the provinces. A very large part of the funds was spent on maintaining the army of the Janissaries, whose numbers increased as the feudal militia supplied by the fiefs decayed and declined. The number of Janissary troops also increased because the Sultan needed military force to suppress the growing struggle of the Turkish and non-Turkish masses against feudal and national oppression. The Janissary army at the beginning of the 17th century exceeded 90 thousand people.
The state authorities, trying to increase treasury revenues, began to increase old taxes and introduce new ones from year to year. The jizya tax, at the beginning of the 16th century equal to 20-25 akche per person, by the beginning of the 17th century reached 140 akche, and tax collectors who extremely abused their powers sometimes brought it up to 400-500 akche. Feudal taxes levied by landowners also increased.
At the same time, the Treasury began to give the right to collect taxes from state lands to tax farmers. Thus, a new category of land owners appeared and began to strengthen - tax farmers, who actually turned into feudal owners of entire regions.
Court and provincial dignitaries often acted as tax farmers. A large amount of state land, through taxation, fell into the hands of the Janissaries and Sipahii.
During the same period, the aggressive policy of the Ottoman Empire encountered increasingly serious obstacles.
Strong and ever-increasing resistance to this policy was shown by Russia, Austria, Poland and, in the Mediterranean, Spain.
Under Suleiman Kanuni's successor, Selim II (1566-1574), a campaign was launched against Astrakhan (1569). But this event, which required significant costs, was not successful: Turkish army was defeated and was forced to retreat.
In 1571, the combined fleet of Spain and Venice inflicted a crushing defeat on the Turkish fleet in the Gulf of Lepanto. The failure of the Astrakhan campaign and the defeat at Lepanto testified to the beginning of the military weakening of the empire.
Nevertheless, the Turkish sultans continued to wage wars that were exhausting for the masses. Started in 1578 and bringing enormous disasters to the peoples of Transcaucasia, the war of the Turkish Sultan with the Safavids ended in 1590 with the signing of a treaty in Istanbul, according to which Tabriz, Shirvan, part of Luristan, Western Georgia and some other regions of the Caucasus were assigned to Turkey. However, she was able to keep these areas (except for Georgian ones) under her rule only for 20 years.
Peasant uprisings at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries.
The state treasury sought to compensate for its military expenses through additional levies from the tax-paying population. There were so many all kinds of emergency taxes and “surcharges” to existing taxes that, as the chronicler wrote, “in the provinces of the state, emergency taxes brought the subjects to the point that they were disgusted with this world and everything that is in it.” The peasants went bankrupt in droves and, despite the punishments that threatened them, fled from their lands. Crowds of hungry and ragged people moved from one province to another in search of tolerable living conditions. Peasants were punished and forced to pay increased taxes for leaving the land without permission. However, these measures did not help.
The arbitrariness of officials, tax farmers, all kinds of duties and labor associated with the need to serve the Sultan's army during camps, caused outbreaks of discontent among the peasants during the last quarter of the 16th century.
In 1591, there was an uprising in Diyarbakir in response to the brutal measures taken by the Beyler Bey when collecting arrears from the peasants. Clashes between the population and the army occurred in 1592-1593. in the Erzl Room and Baghdad areas. In 1596, uprisings broke out in Kerman and neighboring areas of Asia Minor. In 1599, discontent became general and resulted in a peasant uprising that swept through the central and eastern regions of Anatolia.
This time the indignation of the rebels was directed against feudal exactions, taxes, bribery and the arbitrariness of the Sultan's officials and tax farmers. The peasant movement was used by small peasants, who in turn opposed the usurpation of their rights to land by people from the court-bureaucratic aristocracy, large landowners and tax farmers. The small Anatolian feudal lord Kara Yazıcı, having gathered an army of 20-30 thousand people from rebel farmers, nomadic cattle breeders and small farmers, took possession of the city of Kayseri in 1600, declared himself the sultan of the captured regions and refused to obey the Istanbul court. The struggle of the Sultan's armies against popular anti-feudal uprisings continued for five years (1599-1603). In the end, the Sultan managed to come to an agreement with the rebellious feudal lords and brutally suppress the peasant uprising.
However, in subsequent years, throughout the first half of the 17th century, the anti-feudal protests of the peasantry in Asia Minor did not stop. The Jalali movement was especially powerful in 1608. This uprising also reflected the struggle of the enslaved peoples of Syria and Lebanon for liberation from the yoke of Turkish feudal lords. The leader of the uprising, Janpulad-oglu, proclaimed the independence of the regions he had captured and made efforts to attract some Mediterranean states to fight against the Sultan. He concluded, in particular, an agreement with the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Using the most brutal terror, the Sultan’s punishers mercilessly dealt with participants in the “Jalali” movement. According to chroniclers, they destroyed up to 100 thousand people.
Even more powerful were the uprisings of the non-Turkish peoples of the empire in Europe, especially in the Balkans, directed against Turkish rule.
The fight against anti-feudal and people's liberation movements required enormous funds and constant effort from the Turkish rulers, which further undermined the regime of the Sultan's despotism.
The struggle of feudal groups for power. Role of the Janissaries
The Ottoman Empire was also shaken by numerous feudal-separatist uprisings throughout the first half of the 17th century. the uprisings of Bekir Chavush in Baghdad, Abaza Pasha in Erzurum, Vardar Ali Pasha in Rumelia, the Crimean khans and many other powerful feudal lords followed one after another.
The Janissary army also became an unreliable support for the Sultan's power. This large army required huge funds, which were often not enough in the treasury. The intensified struggle for power between individual groups of the feudal aristocracy made the Janissaries a force actively participating in all court intrigues. As a result, the Janissary army turned into a hotbed of court unrest and rebellion. So, in 1622, with his participation, Sultan Osman II was overthrown and killed, and a year later his successor, Mustafa I, was overthrown.
Ottoman Empire in the first half of the 17th century. was still a strong power. Vast territories in Europe, Asia and Africa remained under the rule of the Turks. The long war with the Austrian Habsburgs ended in 1606 with the Treaty of Sitvatorok, which fixed the former borders of the Ottoman state with the Habsburg Empire. The war with Poland ended with the capture of Khotyn (1620). As a result of the war with Venice (1645-1669), the Turks took possession of the island of Crete. New wars with the Safavids, which lasted with short interruptions for almost 30 years, ended in 1639 with the signing of the Kasri-Shirin Treaty, according to which the lands of Azerbaijan, as well as Yerevan, went to Iran, but the Turks retained Basra and Baghdad. Nevertheless, the military power of the Turks was already undermined. It was during this period - in the first half of the 17th century. - those trends developed that later led to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
In the article we will describe in detail the Women's Sultanate. We will talk about its representatives and their rule, about assessments of this period in history.
Before examining in detail the Women's Sultanate of the Ottoman Empire, let's say a few words about the state itself in which it was observed. This is necessary to fit the period of interest to us into the context of history.
The Ottoman Empire is otherwise called the Ottoman Empire. It was founded in 1299. It was then that Osman I Ghazi, who became the first Sultan, declared the territory of a small state independent from the Seljuks. However, some sources report that the title of Sultan was first officially accepted only by Murad I, his grandson.
Rise of the Ottoman Empire
The reign of Suleiman I the Magnificent (from 1521 to 1566) is considered the heyday of the Ottoman Empire. A portrait of this sultan is presented above. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Ottoman state was one of the most powerful in the world. The territory of the empire by 1566 included lands located from the Persian city of Baghdad in the east and Hungarian Budapest in the north to Mecca in the south and Algeria in the west. The influence of this state in the region began to gradually increase from the 17th century. The Empire finally collapsed after losing the First World War.
The role of women in government
For 623 years, the Ottoman dynasty ruled the country's lands, from 1299 to 1922, when the monarchy ceased to exist. Women in the empire we are interested in, unlike the monarchies of Europe, were not allowed to govern the state. However, this situation existed in all Islamic countries.
However, in the history of the Ottoman Empire there is a period called the Women's Sultanate. At this time, representatives of the fair sex actively participated in government. Many famous historians have tried to understand what the Sultanate of Women is and to comprehend its role. We invite you to take a closer look at this interesting period in history.
The term "Female Sultanate"
This term was first proposed to be used in 1916 by Ahmet Refik Altynay, a Turkish historian. It appears in the book of this scientist. His work is called “Women’s Sultanate”. And in our time, debates continue about the impact this period had on the development of the Ottoman Empire. There is disagreement as to what is the main reason for this phenomenon, which is so unusual in the Islamic world. Scientists also argue about who should be considered the first representative of the Women's Sultanate.
Causes
Some historians believe that this period was generated by the end of the campaigns. It is known that the system of conquering lands and obtaining military spoils was based precisely on them. Other scholars believe that the Sultanate of Women in the Ottoman Empire arose due to the struggle to repeal the Law of Succession issued by Fatih. According to this law, all the Sultan's brothers must be executed after ascending to the throne. It didn't matter what their intentions were. Historians who adhere to this opinion consider Hurrem Sultan to be the first representative of the Women's Sultanate.
Khurem Sultan
This woman (her portrait is presented above) was the wife of Suleiman I. It was she who in 1521, for the first time in the history of the state, began to bear the title “Haseki Sultan”. Translated, this phrase means “most beloved wife.”
Let's tell you more about Hurrem Sultan, with whose name the Women's Sultanate in Turkey is often associated. Her real name is Lisovskaya Alexandra (Anastasia). In Europe, this woman is known as Roksolana. She was born in 1505 in Western Ukraine (Rohatina). In 1520, Hurrem Sultan came to the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. Here Suleiman I, the Turkish Sultan, gave Alexandra a new name - Hurrem. This word from Arabic can be translated as “bringing joy.” Suleiman I, as we have already said, bestowed on this woman the title “Haseki Sultan”. Alexandra Lisovskaya received great power. It became even stronger in 1534, when the Sultan's mother died. From that time on, Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska began to manage the harem.
It should be noted that this woman was very educated for her time. She spoke several foreign languages, so she answered letters from influential nobles, foreign rulers and artists. In addition, Hurrem Haseki Sultan received foreign ambassadors. Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska was actually a political adviser to Suleiman I. Her husband spent a significant part of his time on campaigns, so she often had to take on his responsibilities.
Ambiguity in assessing the role of Hurrem Sultan
Not all scholars agree that this woman should be considered a representative of the Women's Sultanate. One of the main arguments they present is that each of the representatives of this period in history was characterized by the following two points: the short reign of the sultans and the presence of the title “valide” (mother of the sultan). None of them refer to Hurrem. She did not live eight years to receive the title "valide". Moreover, it would be simply absurd to believe that the reign of Sultan Suleiman I was short, because he ruled for 46 years. However, it would be wrong to call his reign a “decline.” But the period we are interested in is considered to be a consequence of precisely the “decline” of the empire. It was the poor state of affairs in the state that gave birth to the Women's Sultanate in the Ottoman Empire.
Mihrimah replaced the deceased Hurrem (her grave is pictured above), becoming the leader of the Topkapi harem. It is also believed that this woman influenced her brother. However, she cannot be called a representative of the Women's Sultanate.
And who can rightfully be included among them? We present to your attention a list of rulers.
Women's Sultanate of the Ottoman Empire: list of representatives
For the reasons mentioned above, the majority of historians believe that there were only four representatives.
- The first of them is Nurbanu Sultan (years of life - 1525-1583). She was Venetian by origin, the name of this woman was Cecilia Venier-Baffo.
- The second representative is Safiye Sultan (about 1550 - 1603). She is also a Venetian whose real name is Sofia Baffo.
- The third representative is Kesem Sultan (years of life - 1589 - 1651). Her origins are not known for sure, but she was presumably a Greek woman, Anastasia.
- And the last, fourth representative is Turkhan Sultan (years of life - 1627-1683). This woman is a Ukrainian named Nadezhda.
Turhan Sultan and Kesem Sultan
When the Ukrainian Nadezhda turned 12 years old, the Crimean Tatars captured her. They sold it to Ker Suleiman Pasha. He, in turn, resold the woman to Valide Kesem, the mother of Ibrahim I, a mentally disabled ruler. There is a film called "Mahpaker", which tells about the life of this sultan and his mother, who was actually at the head of the empire. She had to manage all the affairs as Ibrahim I was mentally retarded and therefore could not perform his duties properly.
This ruler ascended the throne in 1640, at the age of 25. Such an important event for the state occurred after the death of Murad IV, his elder brother (for whom Kesem Sultan also ruled the country in the early years). Murad IV was the last sultan of the Ottoman dynasty. Therefore, Kesem was forced to solve the problems of further rule.
Question of succession to the throne
It would seem that getting an heir if you have a large harem is not at all difficult. However, there was one catch. It was that the weak-minded Sultan had an unusual taste and his own ideas about female beauty. Ibrahim I (his portrait is presented above) preferred very fat women. Chronicle records of those years have been preserved, which mention one concubine he liked. Her weight was about 150 kg. From this we can assume that Turhan, which his mother gave to her son, also had considerable weight. Perhaps that's why Kesem bought it.
Fight of two Valides
It is unknown how many children were born to Ukrainian Nadezhda. But it is known that it was she who was the first of the other concubines to give him a son, Mehmed. This happened in January 1642. Mehmed was recognized as the heir to the throne. After the death of Ibrahim I, who died as a result of the coup, he became the new sultan. However, by this time he was only 6 years old. Turhan, his mother, was legally required to receive the title "valide", which would have elevated her to the pinnacle of power. However, everything did not turn out in her favor. Her mother-in-law, Kesem Sultan, did not want to give in to her. She achieved what no other woman could do. She became Valide Sultan for the third time. This woman was the only one in history who had this title under the reigning grandson.
But the fact of her reign haunted Turkhan. In the palace for three years (from 1648 to 1651), scandals flared up and intrigues were woven. In September 1651, 62-year-old Kesem was found strangled. She gave her place to Turhan.
End of the Women's Sultanate
So, according to most historians, the start date of the Women's Sultanate is 1574. It was then that Nurban Sultan was given the title of Valida. The period of interest to us ended in 1687, after the accession to the throne of Sultan Suleiman II. Already in adulthood, he received supreme power, 4 years after Turhan Sultan, who became the last influential Valide, died.
This woman died in 1683, at the age of 55-56 years. Her remains were buried in a tomb in a mosque that she had completed. However, not 1683, but 1687 is considered the official end date of the period of the Women's Sultanate. It was then, at the age of 45, that Mehmed IV was dethroned. This happened as a result of a conspiracy that was organized by Köprülü, the son of the Grand Vizier. Thus ended the sultanate of women. Mehmed spent another 5 years in prison and died in 1693.
Why has the role of women in governing the country increased?
Among the main reasons why the role of women in government has increased, several can be identified. One of them is the love of the sultans for the fair sex. Another is the influence that their mother had on the sons. Another reason is that the sultans were incapacitated at the time of their accession to the throne. One can also note the deceit and intrigue of women and the usual coincidence of circumstances. Another important factor is that the grand viziers changed frequently. Their duration of office in the early 17th century averaged just over a year. This naturally contributed to chaos and political fragmentation in the empire.
Beginning in the 18th century, sultans began to ascend the throne at a fairly mature age. The mothers of many of them died before their children became rulers. Others were so old that they were no longer able to fight for power and participate in solving important state issues. It can be said that by the middle of the 18th century, valides no longer played a special role at court. They did not participate in government.
Estimates of the Women's Sultanate period
The female sultanate in the Ottoman Empire is assessed very ambiguously. Representatives of the fair sex, who were once slaves and were able to rise to the status of valide, were often not prepared to conduct political affairs. In their selection of candidates and their appointment to important positions, they relied mainly on the advice of those close to them. The choice was often based not on the abilities of certain individuals or their loyalty to the ruling dynasty, but on their ethnic loyalty.
On the other hand, the Women's Sultanate in the Ottoman Empire had both positive sides. Thanks to him, it was possible to maintain the monarchical order characteristic of this state. It was based on the fact that all sultans should be from the same dynasty. The incompetence or personal shortcomings of rulers (such as the cruel Sultan Murad IV, whose portrait is shown above, or the mentally ill Ibrahim I) were compensated by the influence and power of their mothers or women. However, one cannot fail to take into account that the actions of women carried out during this period contributed to the stagnation of the empire. This applies to a greater extent to Turhan Sultan. her son, lost the Battle of Vienna on September 11, 1683.
Finally
In general, we can say that in our time there is no unambiguous and generally accepted historical assessment of the influence that the Women's Sultanate had on the development of the empire. Some scholars believe that the rule of the fair sex pushed the state to its death. Others believe that it was more a consequence than a cause of the country's decline. However, one thing is clear: the women of the Ottoman Empire had much less influence and were much further from absolutism than their modern rulers in Europe (for example, Elizabeth I and Catherine II).
Introduction
By the beginning of the 16th century. The military-feudal Ottoman Empire brought almost the entire Balkan Peninsula under its rule. Only on the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic Sea did the Dubrovnik Republic retain its independence, formally recognizing, however, after the Battle of Mohács (1526) the supreme power of Turkey. The Venetians also managed to retain their possessions in the eastern part of the Adriatic - the Ionian Islands and the island of Crete, as well as a narrow strip of land with the cities of Zadar, Split, Kotor, Trogir, Sibenik.
The Turkish conquest played a negative role in the historical fate of the Balkan peoples, delaying their socio-economic development. To the class antagonism of feudal society was added religious antagonism between Muslims and Christians, which essentially expressed the relationship between conquerors and conquered peoples. The Turkish government and feudal lords oppressed the Christian peoples of the Balkan Peninsula and committed arbitrariness.
Persons of the Christian faith did not have the right to serve in government institutions, carry weapons, and for showing disrespect for the Muslim religion they were forcibly converted to Islam or severely punished. To strengthen its power, the Turkish government resettled tribes of nomadic Turks from Asia Minor to the Balkans. They settled in fertile valleys, strategically important areas, displacing local residents. Sometimes the Christian population was evicted by the Turks from cities, especially large ones. Another means of strengthening Turkish dominance was the Islamization of the conquered population. Many “post-Turkish” came from among the people captured and sold into slavery, for whom conversion to Islam was the only way to regain freedom (according to Turkish law, Muslims could not be slaves)². Needing military forces, the Turkish government formed a Janissary corps from Christians who converted to Islam, which was the Sultan's guard. At first, the Janissaries were recruited from among captured youths. Later, systematic recruitment of the healthiest and most beautiful Christian boys began, who were converted to Islam and sent to study in Asia Minor. In an effort to preserve their property and privileges, many Balkan feudal lords, mainly small and medium-sized ones, as well as urban artisans and merchants, converted to Islam. A significant part of the “post-Turkish people” gradually lost contact with their people and adopted the Turkish language and culture. All this led to the numerical growth of the Turkish people and strengthened the power of the Turks in the conquered lands. Serbs, Greeks, and Albanians who converted to Islam sometimes occupied high positions and became major military leaders. Among the rural population, Islamization became widespread only in Bosnia, some regions of Macedonia and Albania, but the change in religion for the most part did not lead to separation from their nationality, to the loss of their native language, native customs and culture. The majority of the working population of the Balkan Peninsula, and above all the peasantry, even in those cases when they were forced to convert to Islam, were not assimilated by the Turks.
The entire structure of the feudal Turkish state was subordinated to the interests of waging wars of conquest. The Ottoman Empire was the only true military power of the Middle Ages. The military success of the Turks, who created a strong army, was facilitated by a favorable international situation for them - the collapse of the Mongol state, the decline of Byzantium, and contradictions between the states of medieval Europe. But the huge empire created by the Turks had no national basis. The dominant people, the Turks, constituted a minority of its population. At the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries, a protracted crisis of the feudal Ottoman Empire began, which determined its decline and subsequently facilitated the penetration of European colonialists into Turkey and other countries under its domination.
How many years does it usually take to collapse an empire?
And how many wars does this require? In the case of the Ottoman Empire, it took 400 years and at least two dozen wars, including the First World War that began in Sarajevo.
I can’t even believe how many of the most pressing problems of today’s Europe have their roots in that national-political-religious node that remained in the place where the Ottoman Empire once stretched.
Section I: Ethnosocial and religious policy Ports in the Balkan countries
1.1 The situation of the Orthodox Church (using the example of Bulgaria)
1.1.1 Bulgaria within the Patriarchate of Constantinople
The first metropolitan of the Tarnovo diocese within the Patriarchate of Constantinople was Ignatius, the former metropolitan of Nicomedia: his signature is the 7th in the list of representatives of the Greek clergy at the Florence Council of 1439. In one of the lists of dioceses of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the mid-15th century, the Tarnovo Metropolitan occupies a high 11th place (after Thessaloniki); Three episcopal sees are subordinate to him: Cherven, Lovech and Preslav. Until the mid-nineteenth century, the Tarnovo diocese covered most of the lands of Northern Bulgaria and extended south to the Maritsa River, including the areas of Kazanlak, Stara and Nova Zagora. The bishops of Preslav (until 1832, when Preslav became a metropolitan), Cherven (until 1856, when Cherven was also elevated to the rank of metropolitan), Lovchansky and Vrachansky were subordinate to the Tarnovo metropolitan.
The Patriarch of Constantinople, considered the supreme representative before the Sultan of all Orthodox Christians (millet-bashi), had broad rights in spiritual, civil and legal economic spheres, but remained under the constant control of the Ottoman government and was personally responsible for the loyalty of his flock to the authority of the Sultan.
Church subordination to Constantinople was accompanied by increased Greek influence in the Bulgarian lands. Greek bishops were appointed to the departments, who in turn supplied Greek clergy to monasteries and parish churches, which resulted in the practice of holding services in Greek, incomprehensible to most of the congregation. Church positions were often filled with the help of large bribes; local church taxes (more than 20 of their types are known) were levied arbitrarily, often using violent methods. In case of refusal of payments, the Greek hierarchs closed the churches, anathematized the disobedient, and presented them to the Ottoman authorities as unreliable and subject to relocation to another area or taking into custody. Despite the numerical superiority of the Greek clergy, in a number of dioceses the local population managed to retain a Bulgarian abbot. Many monasteries (Etropolsky, Rilsky, Dragalevsky, Kurilovsky, Kremikovsky, Cherepishsky, Glozhensky, Kuklensky, Elenishsky and others) preserved the Church Slavonic language in worship.
In the first centuries of Ottoman rule, there was no ethnic hostility between the Bulgarians and Greeks; There are many examples of joint struggle against conquerors who equally oppressed Orthodox peoples. Thus, Metropolitan of Tarnovo Dionysius (Rali) became one of the leaders of the preparation of the first Tarnovo uprising of 1598 and attracted the bishops Jeremiah of Rusensky, Feofan Lovchansky, Spiridon of Shumen (Preslavsky) and Methodius of Vrachansky subordinate to him. 12 Tarnovo priests and 18 influential laymen, together with the Metropolitan, vowed to remain faithful to the cause of the liberation of Bulgaria until their death. In the spring or summer of 1596, a secret organization was created, which included dozens of both clergy and secular persons. Greek influence in the Bulgarian lands was largely due to the influence of Greek-speaking culture and the influence of the growing process of “Hellenic revival”.
1.1.2 New martyrs and ascetics of the period of the Ottoman yoke
During the period of Turkish rule, the Orthodox faith was the only support for the Bulgarians that allowed them to preserve their national identity. Attempts at forced conversion to Islam contributed to the fact that remaining faithful to the Christian faith was also perceived as protecting one’s national identity. The feat of the new martyrs was directly correlated with the exploits of the martyrs of the first centuries of Christianity.
Their lives were created, services were compiled for them, the celebration of their memory was organized, the veneration of their relics was organized, churches consecrated in their honor were built. The exploits of dozens of saints who suffered during the period of Turkish rule are known. As a result of outbreaks of fanatical bitterness of Muslims against the Christian Bulgarians, George the New of Sophia, burned alive in 1515, George the Old and George the New, hanged in 1534, suffered martyrdom; Nicholas the New and Hieromartyr. Bishop Vissarion of Smolyansky was stoned to death by a crowd of Turks - one in Sofia in 1555, others in Smolyan in 1670. In 1737, the organizer of the uprising, Hieromartyr Metropolitan Simeon Samokovsky, was hanged in Sofia. In 1750, Angel Lerinsky (Bitolsky) was beheaded with a sword for refusing to convert to Islam in Bitola. In 1771, the Hieromartyr Damascene was hanged by a crowd of Turks in Svishtov.
Martyr John in 1784 confessed the Christian faith in the St. Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople, converted into a mosque, for which he was beheaded; martyr Zlata Moglenskaya, who did not succumb to the persuasion of her Turkish kidnapper to accept his faith, was tortured and hanged in 1795 in the village of Slatino Moglenskaya areas. After torture, the martyr Lazarus was hanged in 1802 in the vicinity of the village of Soma near Pergamon. They confessed the Lord in the Muslim court. Ignatius of Starozagorsky in 1814 in Constantinople, who died by hanging, and so on. Onufriy Gabrovsky in 1818 on the island of Chios, beheaded by a sword. In 1822, in the city of Osman-Pazar (modern Omurtag), the martyr John was hanged, publicly repenting of having converted to Islam; in 1841, in Sliven, the head of the martyr Demetrius of Sliven was beheaded; in 1830, in Plovdiv, the martyr Rada of Plovdiv suffered for her faith. The BOC celebrates the memory of all the saints and martyrs of the Bulgarian land, who pleased the Lord with a firm confession of the faith of Christ and accepted the crown of martyrdom for the glory of the Lord, on the 2nd week after Pentecost.
1.1.3 Patriotic and educational activities of Bulgarian monasteries
During the Turkish conquest of the Balkans in the 2nd half of the 14th - early 15th centuries, most of the parish churches and once thriving Bulgarian monasteries were burned or looted, many frescoes, icons, manuscripts, and church utensils were lost. For decades, teaching in monastery and church schools and the copying of books ceased, and many traditions of Bulgarian art were lost. The Tarnovo monasteries were especially damaged. Some representatives of the educated clergy (mainly from among the monastics) died, others were forced to leave the Bulgarian lands. Only a few monasteries survived due to either the intercession of relatives of the highest dignitaries of the Ottoman Empire, or the special merits of the local population to the Sultan, or their location in inaccessible mountainous regions. According to some researchers, the Turks destroyed mainly monasteries located in areas that most strongly resisted the conquerors, as well as monasteries that were on the routes of military campaigns. From the 70s of the 14th century until the end of the 15th century, the system of Bulgarian monasteries did not exist as an integral organism; Many monasteries can be judged only from the surviving ruins and toponymic data.
The population - secular and clergy - on their own initiative and at their own expense, restored monasteries and churches. Among the surviving and restored monasteries are Rilsky, Boboshevsky, Dragalevsky, Kurilovsky, Karlukovsky, Etropolsky, Bilinsky, Rozhensky, Kapinovsky, Preobrazhensky, Lyaskovsky, Plakovsky, Dryanovsky, Kilifarevo, Prisovsky, Patriarchal Holy Trinity near Tarnovo and others, although their existence was constantly under threat due to frequent attacks, robberies and fires. In many of them, life stood still for long periods.
During the suppression of the first Tarnovo uprising in 1598, most of the rebels took refuge in the Kilifarevo Monastery, restored in 1442; For this, the Turks again destroyed the monastery. The surrounding monasteries - Lyaskovsky, Prisovsky and Plakovsky - were also damaged. In 1686, during the second Tarnovo uprising, many monasteries were also damaged. In 1700, the Lyaskovsky Monastery became the center of the so-called revolt of Mary. During the suppression of the uprising, this monastery and the neighboring Transfiguration Monastery suffered.
The traditions of medieval Bulgarian culture were preserved by the followers of Patriarch Euthymius, who emigrated to Serbia, Mount Athos, and also to Eastern Europe: Metropolitan Cyprian († 1406), Gregory Tsamblak († 1420), Deacon Andrei († after 1425), Konstantin Kostenetsky († after 1433 ) and others.
In Bulgaria itself, a revival of cultural activity occurred in the 50s–80s of the 15th century. Cultural upsurge swept the West former territories country, the center became the Rila Monastery. It was restored in the middle of the 15th century through the efforts of the monks Joasaph, David and Theophan with the patronage and generous financial support of the widow of Sultan Murad II Mara Brankovich (daughter of the Serbian despot George). With the transfer of the relics of St. John of Rila there in 1469, the monastery became one of the spiritual centers not only of Bulgaria, but also of the Slavic Balkans as a whole; Thousands of pilgrims began to arrive here. In 1466, an agreement on mutual assistance was concluded between the Rila monastery and the Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mount Athos. Gradually, the activities of scribes, icon painters and traveling preachers resumed in the Rila Monastery.
The scribes Demetrius Kratovsky, Vladislav Grammatik, monks Mardari, David, Pachomius and others worked in the monasteries of Western Bulgaria and Macedonia. The Collection of 1469, written by Vladislav the Grammar, included a number of works related to the history of the Bulgarian people: “Long Life of St. Cyril the Philosopher”, “Eulogy to Saints Cyril and Methodius” and others; the basis of the “Rila Panegyric” of 1479 is made up of the best works of the Balkan Hesychast writers of the 2nd half of the 11th - beginning of the 15th centuries: (“The Life of St. John of Rila”, epistles and other works of Euthymius of Tarnovsky, “The Life of Stefan Dečansky” by Gregory Tsamblak, “The Eulogy of St. Philotheus” by Iosaf Bdinsky, “The Life of Gregory Sinaita" and "The Life of St. Theodosius of Tarnovo" by Patriarch Callistus), as well as new works ("The Rila Tale" by Vladislav Grammatik and "The Life of St. John of Rila with Little Praise" by Dimitri Kantakouzin).
At the end of the 15th century, monks-scribes and compilers of collections Spiridon and Peter Zograf worked in the Rila Monastery; For the Suceava (1529) and Krupniši (1577) Gospels stored here, unique gold bindings were made in the monastery workshops.
Book-writing activity was also carried out in monasteries located in the vicinity of Sofia - Dragalevsky, Kremikovsky, Seslavsky, Lozensky, Kokalyansky, Kurilovsky and others. The Dragalevsky monastery was restored in 1476; The initiator of its renovation and decoration was the wealthy Bulgarian Radoslav Mavr, whose portrait, surrounded by his family, was placed among the paintings in the vestibule of the monastery church. In 1488, Hieromonk Neophytos and his sons, priest Dimitar and Bogdan, built and decorated the Church of St. with their own funds. Demetrius in the Boboshevsky Monastery. In 1493, Radivoj, a wealthy resident of the suburbs of Sofia, restored the Church of St. George in the Kremikovsky Monastery; his portrait was also placed in the vestibule of the temple. In 1499, the church of St. Apostle John the Theologian in Poganov, as evidenced by the preserved ktitor portraits and inscriptions.
In the 16th–17th centuries, the Etropole Monastery of the Holy Trinity (or Varovitec), founded initially (in the 15th century) by a colony of Serbian miners that existed in the nearby city of Etropole, became a major center of writing. In the Etropol Monastery, dozens of liturgical books and collections of mixed content were copied, richly decorated with elegantly executed titles, vignettes and miniatures. The names of local scribes are known: the grammarian Boycho, the hieromonk Danail, Taho Grammar, the priest Velcho, the daskal (teacher) Koyo, the grammarian John, the carver Mavrudiy and others. IN scientific literature There is even a concept of an Etropol art and calligraphy school. Master Nedyalko Zograf from Lovech created an icon of the Old Testament Trinity for the monastery in 1598, and 4 years later he painted the church of the nearby Karlukovo monastery. A series of icons were painted in Etropol and surrounding monasteries, including images of Bulgarian saints; the inscriptions on them were made in Slavic. The activity of monasteries on the periphery of the Sofia Plain was similar: it is no coincidence that this area received the name Sofia Small Holy Mountain.
Characteristic is the work of the painter Hieromonk Pimen Zografsky (Sofia), who worked at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century in the vicinity of Sofia and Western Bulgaria, where he decorated dozens of churches and monasteries. In the 17th century, churches were restored and painted in Karlukovsky (1602), Seslavsky, Alinsky (1626), Bilinsky, Trynsky, Mislovishitsky, Iliyansky, Iskretsky and other monasteries.
Bulgarian Christians counted on the help of the Slavic peoples of the same faith, especially the Russians. Since the 16th century, Russia was regularly visited by Bulgarian hierarchs, abbots of monasteries and other clergy. One of them was the above-mentioned Tarnovo Metropolitan Dionysius (Rali), who delivered to Moscow the decision of the Council of Constantinople (1590) on the establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia. Monks, including the abbots of Rila, Preobrazhensky, Lyaskovsky, Bilinsky and other monasteries, in the 16th–17th centuries asked the Moscow Patriarchs and sovereigns for funds to restore damaged monasteries and protect them from oppression by the Turks. Later, trips to Russia for alms to restore their monasteries were made by the abbot of the Transfiguration Monastery (1712), the archimandrite of the Lyaskovsky Monastery (1718) and others. In addition to generous monetary alms for monasteries and churches, Slavic books were brought from Russia to Bulgaria, primarily of spiritual content, which did not allow the cultural and national consciousness of the Bulgarian people to fade.
In the 18th–19th centuries, as the economic capabilities of the Bulgarians grew, donations to monasteries increased. In the first half of the 18th century, many monastery churches and chapels were restored and decorated: in 1700 the Kapinovsky monastery was restored, in 1701 - the Dryanovsky monastery, in 1704 the Chapel of the Holy Trinity in the monastery was painted Holy Mother of God in the village of Arbanasi near Tarnovo, in 1716 in the same village the chapel of the monastery of St. Nicholas was consecrated, in 1718 the Kilifarevo monastery was restored (in the place where it is now located), in 1732 the church of the Rozhen monastery was renewed and decorated. At the same time, magnificent icons of the Trevno, Samokov and Debra schools were created. In monasteries, reliquaries for holy relics, icon frames, censers, crosses, chalices, trays, candlesticks and much more were created, which determined their role in the development of jewelry and blacksmithing, weaving, and miniature carving.
1.2 The situation of foreigners (mustemen) and non-Muslims (dhimmis)
Müstemen (person who received eman-promise of security, i.e. safe conduct). This term denoted foreigners who were temporarily, with the permission of the authorities, in the territory Dar ul-Islam. The status of the Mustemen in Islamic countries and the Ottoman state is similar to the status dhimmi, but still there are some differences. According to Abu Hanifa¹, when the Mustemen committed crimes against individuals, the norms of Islamic law were applied to them. According to this, if a mustemen intentionally killed a Muslim or a dhimmi, he was punished according to the norms kysas(revenge, "an eye for an eye"). There are no punishments in Islamic law for crimes that violate divine rights. An example of this is adultery. Abu Yusuf, also a Hanefi, disagrees with his teacher on this issue; he says that the mustemen must be held accountable for any crimes according to Islamic law. The Melikites, Shafi'ites and Hanbelites approach this issue like Abu Yusuf, and do not believe that the Mustemen should be treated with special treatment in matters of criminal law.
If we talk about whether or not the mustemen were given autonomy in legal rights, like dhimmis, it should be noted that until the time of Suleiman Kanuni there is no information about this. For the first time in 1535, in the capitulations granted to France, it was recognized that any legal and criminal cases of traders, subjects of France, on the territory of the Ottoman Empire were decided by the French consuls. Then this benefit was extended to other foreigners, and the consular courts became the judicial authority in the event of conflicts between the Mustemen themselves. Thus, the Müstemen, in terms of litigation on the territory of the Ottoman state, found themselves in a position similar to the dhimmi. If conflicts arose between the Müstemen and Ottoman subjects, here, as in the case of dhimmis, the Ottoman courts were considered competent. But here, too, there were some differences and benefits for the Müstemen: for example, some cases were heard in Divan-i Humayun, and embassy dragomans (interpreters) could be present at court hearings.
Over time, this practice created situations that were contrary to the sovereignty of the Ottoman state, and it attempted to abolish the legal powers of the consular courts. But by that time, the Ottoman state was seriously weakened, and it did not have the strength to resist the West and resolve this issue.
The legal privileges enjoyed by non-Muslims in the Ottoman state, whether müstemen or dhimmis, acquired new uniform after the signing of the Treaty of Ouchy-Lausanne between the Western powers and the Turkish Republic. According to him, these legal privileges were abolished.
It is known that when a country became part of Dar ul-Islam, those living in this country had to leave the country, or enter into an agreement with the Islamic state and continue to live in their homeland on the terms of the agreement. This agreement between the Islamic state and the non-Muslims who entered into the agreement was called dhimmet, and the non-Muslims who entered into the agreement were called dhimmis. According to the treaty, dhimmis were largely subordinate to the Islamic state, and instead of compulsory military service, they paid a special poll tax. jizya. In response, the Islamic state took upon itself the protection of life and property and allowed them to live according to their faith. In the first treaties with the dhimmis, the emphasis was on these three points.
Islam had a high state level in relation to other religions:
1) Christians and Jews do not dare to build monasteries, churches, synagogues and chapels on conquered lands. In fact, this could have been arranged with the permission of the Sanjakbey.
2) They do not dare to repair their churches without permission. The permission of the Sanjakbey was required.
3) Those of them who live near Muslims can repair their houses only in case of great need. Indeed, the authorities sought to resettle the Christian and Muslim population quarter by quarter. However, representatives of other faiths also sought to separate themselves. For example, in Istanbul, Izmir, and Thessaloniki there were separate compact settlements of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and foreigners.
4) They will not accept fugitives, and if they find out about such people, they must immediately hand them over to the Muslims. This refers to runaway peasants and outlaws. The same rule applies to Muslims.
5) They do not have the right to pronounce sentences among themselves. Indeed, the court was administered by a Muslim judge - a qadi. However, the millets had the right to consider trade proceedings between co-religionists. However, already in the 17th century. their rights in this direction are significantly expanded.
6) They cannot prevent anyone from their midst from becoming a Muslim.
7) They will behave with respect towards Muslims, stand up when they arrive and give them a place of honor without delay. 8) Christians and Jews cannot wear clothes and shoes like Muslims. This refers to religious clothing. This applies only to the green color and “truly Muslim” attributes, such as, for example, a turban or a fez.
9) They cannot learn the Arabic literary language. In fact, this rule was violated all the time. Arabic was often taught to Christian youth voluntarily in order to instill good relations to Islam.
10) They cannot ride a saddled horse, carry a saber or other weapons either in the house or outside it. You cannot ride on horseback only if there are Muslims on foot nearby, so as not to be taller than them.
11) They do not have the right to sell wine to Muslims.
12) They cannot put their name on a signet ring.
13) They cannot wear a wide belt.
14) Outside their homes they do not have the right to openly wear a cross or their holy letter.
15) Outside their homes they do not have the right to ring loudly and loudly, but only in moderation (meaning church ringing). Bell ringing was completely prohibited. Because of this, a serious stagnation of bell art occurred in Greece, Bulgaria, and Mount Athos.
16) They can only sing religious chants quietly. This means “without attracting the attention of Muslims.” In fact, there is ample evidence that Christians, Muslims and Jews held mass religious celebrations together using musical instruments and carrying banners during times of drought.
17) They can only silently pray for the dead. No loud funeral processions are allowed.
18) Muslims can plow and sow in Christian cemeteries if they are no longer used for burials.
IISection: Feudal relations under Ottoman rule
2.1 Peasant land use and the position of the peasantry
In the 16th century In the Ottoman Empire, developed feudal relations were dominant. Feudal ownership of land came in several forms. Until the end of the 16th century, most of the land of the Ottoman Empire was state property, and its supreme administrator was the Sultan. However, only part of these lands was under the direct control of the treasury. A significant part of the state land fund consisted of the possessions (domain) of the Sultan himself - the best lands in Bulgaria, Thrace, Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. The income from these lands went entirely to the personal disposal of the Sultan and for the maintenance of his court. Many regions of Anatolia (for example, Amasya, Kayseri, Tokat, Karaman, etc.) were also the property of the Sultan and his family - sons and other close relatives.
The Sultan distributed state lands to feudal lords for hereditary ownership on the terms of military fief tenure. Owners of small and large fiefs (“timars”, “iktu” - with an income of up to 3 thousand akche and “zeamet” - from 3 thousand to 100 thousand akche). These lands served as the basis of the economic power of the feudal lords and the most important source of the military power of the state.
From the same fund of state lands, the Sultan distributed land to court and provincial dignitaries, the income from which (they were called khasses, and the income from them was determined in the amount of 100 thousand akche and above) went entirely to the maintenance of state dignitaries in return for salaries. Each dignitary enjoyed the income from the lands provided to him only as long as he retained his post.
In the 16th century the owners of Timars, Zeamets and Khass usually lived in cities and did not run their own households. They collected feudal duties from the peasants sitting on the land with the help of stewards and tax collectors, and often tax farmers.
Another form of feudal land ownership was the so-called waqf possessions. This category included huge areas of land that were fully owned by mosques and various other religious and charitable institutions. These land holdings represented the economic base of the strongest political influence of the Muslim clergy in the Ottoman Empire.
The category of private feudal property included the lands of feudal lords, who received special Sultan's letters for any merit for the unlimited right to dispose of the estates provided. This category of feudal land ownership (called "mulk") arose in the Ottoman state at an early stage of its formation. Despite the fact that the number of mulks was constantly increasing, their share was small until the end of the 16th century.
Lands of all categories of feudal property were in the hereditary use of the peasantry. Throughout the territory of the Ottoman Empire, peasants living on the lands of feudal lords were included in the scribe books called raya (raya, reaya) and were obliged to cultivate the plots allocated to them. The attachment of rayats to their plots was recorded in laws at the end of the 15th century. During the 16th century. There was a process of enslavement of the peasantry throughout the empire, and in the second half of the 16th century. Suleiman's law finally approved the attachment of peasants to the land. The law stated that the rayat was obliged to live on the land of the feudal lord in whose register it was entered. In the event that a raiyat voluntarily left the plot allotted to him and moved to the land of another feudal lord, the previous owner could find him within 15-20 years and force him to return back, also imposing a fine on him.
While cultivating the plots allotted to them, the peasant rayats bore numerous feudal duties in favor of the land owner. In the 16th century In the Ottoman Empire, all three forms of feudal rent existed - labor, food and cash. The most common was rent in products. Raya Muslims were required to pay tithes on grain, garden and vegetable crops, taxes on all types of livestock, and also perform fodder duties. The landowner had the right to punish and fine those who were guilty. In some areas, peasants also had to work several days a year for the landowner in the vineyard, building a house, delivering firewood, straw, hay, bringing him all kinds of gifts, etc.
All the duties listed above were also required to be performed by non-Muslim rayas. But in addition, they paid a special poll tax to the treasury - jizya from the male population, and in some areas of the Balkan Peninsula they were also obliged to supply boys for the Janissary army every 3-5 years. The last duty (the so-called devshirme), which served the Turkish conquerors as one of the many means of forcible assimilation of the conquered population, was especially difficult and humiliating for those who were obliged to fulfill it.
In addition to all the duties that the rayats performed in favor of their landowners, they also had to perform a number of special military duties (called “avaris”) directly for the benefit of the treasury. Collected in the form of labor, various kinds of natural supplies, and often in cash, these so-called Diwan taxes were more numerous the more wars the Ottoman Empire waged. Thus, the settled agricultural peasantry in the Ottoman Empire bore the main burden of maintaining the ruling class and the entire huge state and military machine of the feudal empire.
A significant part of the population of Asia Minor continued to lead the life of nomads, united in tribal or clan unions. Submitting to the head of the tribe, who was a vassal of the Sultan, the nomads were considered military. In wartime, cavalry detachments were formed from them, which, led by their military leaders, were supposed to appear at the first call of the Sultan to a specified place. Among the nomads, every 25 men formed a “hearth”, which was supposed to send five “next” ones from their midst on a campaign, providing them at their own expense with horses, weapons and food during the entire campaign. For this, nomads were exempt from paying taxes to the treasury. But as the importance of the captive cavalry increased, the duties of the detachments made up of nomads increasingly began to be limited to performing auxiliary work: the construction of roads, bridges, baggage service, etc. The main places of settlement of the nomads were the southeastern and southern regions of Anatolia, as well as some areas of Macedonia and Southern Bulgaria.
In the laws of the 16th century. traces of the unlimited right of nomads to move with their herds in any direction remained: “Pasture lands have no boundaries. Since ancient times, it has been established that where cattle go, let them wander in that place. Since ancient times, it has been incompatible with the law to sell and cultivate established pastures. If someone forcibly cultivates them, they should be turned back into pastures. Village residents have no connection with pastures and therefore cannot prohibit anyone from roaming them.”
Nomads were not attributed to the owners of the land and did not have individual plots. They used the pasture land together, as communities. If the owner or proprietor of pasture lands was not at the same time the head of a tribe or clan, he could not interfere in the internal affairs of nomadic communities, since they were subordinate only to their tribal or clan leaders.
The nomadic community as a whole was economically dependent on the feudal owners of the land, but each individual member of the nomadic community was economically and legally dependent completely on his community, which was bound by mutual responsibility and dominated by tribal leaders and military leaders. Traditional clan ties covered social differentiation within nomadic communities. Only the nomads who broke ties with the community, settling on the land, turned into rayats, already attached to their plots. However, the process of settling the nomads on the land occurred extremely slowly, since they, trying to preserve the community as a means of self-defense from oppression by landowners, stubbornly resisted all attempts to speed up this process by violent measures.
Section III: Revolts of the Balkan peoples
3.1 The growth of the liberation and anti-feudal movement of the Balkan peoples at the end of the 16th-17th centuries
Popular uprisings in Asia Minor in the first half of the 16th century.
Wars of the Turkish conquerors from the beginning of the 16th century. entailed an increase in the already numerous exactions, in particular exactions in favor of the active armies, which in a continuous stream passed through the villages and cities of Asia Minor or were concentrated in them in preparation for new offensives against the Safavid state and Arab countries. The feudal rulers demanded more and more funds from the peasants to support their troops, and it was at this time that the treasury began to introduce emergency military taxes (avaris). All this led to an increase in popular discontent in Asia Minor. This discontent found expression not only in the anti-feudal protests of the Turkish peasantry and nomadic herders, but also in the liberation struggle of non-Turkish tribes and peoples, including residents of the eastern regions of Asia Minor - Kurds, Arabs, Armenians, etc.
In 1511-1512 Asia Minor was engulfed in a popular uprising led by Shah-kulu (or Shaitan-kulu). The uprising, despite the fact that it took place under religious Shiite slogans, was a serious attempt by the farmers and nomadic pastoralists of Asia Minor to provide armed resistance to the increase in feudal exploitation. Shah-kulu, proclaiming himself a “savior,” called for refusal to obey the Turkish Sultan. In battles with rebels in the Sivas and Kayseri regions, the Sultan's troops were repeatedly defeated.
Sultan Selim I led a fierce struggle against this uprising. Under the guise of Shiites, more than 40 thousand inhabitants were exterminated in Asia Minor. Everyone who could be suspected of disobedience to the Turkish feudal lords and the Sultan was declared Shiites.
In 1518, another major popular uprising broke out - under the leadership of the peasant Nur Ali. The center of the uprising was the areas of Karahisar and Niksar, from there it later spread to Amasya and Tokat. The rebels here also demanded the abolition of taxes and duties. After repeated battles with the Sultan's troops, the rebels scattered to the villages. But soon a new uprising, which arose in 1519 in the vicinity of Tokat, quickly spread throughout Central Anatolia. The number of rebels reached 20 thousand people. The leader of this uprising was one of the residents of Tokat, Jelal, after whom all such popular uprisings subsequently became known as “Jalali”.
Like previous uprisings, Celal's uprising was directed against the tyranny of the Turkish feudal lords, against countless duties and extortions, against the excesses of the Sultan's officials and tax collectors. Armed rebels captured Karahisar and headed towards Ankara.
To suppress this uprising, Sultan Selim I had to send significant military forces to Asia Minor. The rebels in the battle of Aksehir were defeated and scattered. Jalal fell into the hands of punitive forces and was brutally executed.
However, the reprisal against the rebels did not pacify the peasant masses for long. During 1525-1526 The eastern regions of Asia Minor up to Sivas were again engulfed in a peasant uprising, led by Koca Soglu-oglu and Zunnun-oglu. In 1526, an uprising led by Kalender Shah, numbering up to 30 thousand participants - Turks and Kurdish nomads, engulfed the Malatya region. Farmers and cattle breeders demanded not only a reduction in duties and taxes, but also the return of land and pastures that had been appropriated by the Sultan's treasury and distributed to Turkish feudal lords.
The rebels repeatedly defeated punitive detachments and were defeated only after a large Sultan's army was sent from Istanbul against them.
Peasant uprisings of the early 16th century. in Asia Minor testified to a sharp aggravation of the class struggle in Turkish feudal society. In the middle of the 16th century. A Sultan's decree was issued on the deployment of Janissary garrisons in the largest points of all provinces of the empire. With these measures and punitive expeditions, the Sultan's power managed to restore calm in Asia Minor for some time.
3.2 The struggle of Montenegrins for liberation from Turkish rule
During the period of Turkish rule, Montenegro covered only a small part of the territory that it currently occupies. It was a small mountainous region lying to the west of the Moraca and Zeta rivers. In socio-economic terms, Montenegro lagged behind other Yugoslav lands. The transition to the rule of Turkish feudal lords of low-lying areas near Podgorica and Zabljak deprived the Montenegrins of fertile lands and complicated trade. The annexation of the entire Dalmatian coast from Kotor to Bar to Venice blocked their access to the sea and further worsened the economic situation of Montenegro.
Engaged mainly in cattle breeding, cultivating tiny plots of land reclaimed from rock-covered mountains, the Montenegrins could not satisfy even the most basic needs of life and usually suffered severely from hunger. Trade ties were maintained with the nearest cities - Podgorica, Spuzh, Niksic, Skadar, but mainly with Kotor, where the Black people sent livestock and livestock products for sale, and bought salt, bread, gunpowder and other goods they needed. Montenegrins had to constantly defend their land from attacks by Turkish troops or neighboring tribes. This instilled in them good fighting qualities and made military affairs a profession for many of them. Since Montenegro was considered the sultan's khas, there were no possessions of Turkish feudal lords in it. Land convenient for cultivation was in the private ownership of individual families, while forests and pastures were owned by rural communities as collective property.
The Turkish government never managed to strengthen its power in Montenegro, whose dependence on the Porte was weak and actually came down to the Montenegrins paying harach, often collected with the help of military force. The Montenegrins also had military obligations to the Porte: they had to defend the border from attacks from outside. The special conditions that developed in Montenegro - isolation from the outside world, the need to protect freedom from Turkish encroachments - led to the formation of territorial administrative units-tribes, consisting of several brotherhoods, on the basis of pre-existing knezhins. Tribal associations also became military-political unions. They jointly defended themselves from attacks and conducted military operations. The tribes provided protection to their members; they strictly observed local law, which included some archaic customs: blood feud. Each tribe had its own assembly of all adult members, the decisions of which were binding on everyone. However, essentially all power was concentrated in the hands of the prince elders and governors, who actually enjoyed hereditary rights to this position; in addition, there was a chief prince. He usually acted as a mediator in relations between the Turkish authorities and the Montenegrins. But the power of the main princes and spahii was, as a rule, small.
In Montenegro there was a general representative body - assembly or assembly. The most important issues of internal life, relations with the Turks, Venice and other states were resolved at it. Decisions were made by the metropolitan, the chief prince and the rest of the governors and princes-representatives of each tribe. However, they could be canceled by the people present at the gathering.
Despite the existence of this all-Montenegrin representative body, the tribes were very divided among themselves, and hostility and armed clashes did not stop among them. Intertribal strife was often incited by the Turkish authorities, who hoped in this way to strengthen their power and influence in Montenegro. For the same purpose, a policy of Islamization was pursued, which led to the formation of a layer of Turkmen among the Chergogorsk people, although there were few of them.
Under these conditions, the only factor uniting the Montenegrin tribes was the Orthodox Church. In the 1750s. The power and political importance of the Montenegrin metropolitans gradually increased, slowly but steadily uniting the tribes into a single state whole. The residence of the Montenegrin metropolitans or rulers was located in the inaccessible mountains of Katun Nakhia. The monastery gradually increased its property and land holdings, on which lived peasants who were feudally dependent on it. Subsequently, it turned into the political center of all of Montenegro.
In the 17th century, the Turkish government and feudal lords increased pressure on the Montenegrin tribes, trying to deprive them of their autonomous rights, force them to regularly pay harach and introduce new taxes. This policy met with active resistance from Montenegrins who defended their rights and privileges. The struggle of the Montenegrins was led and organized by metropolitans, individual princes and governors.
Due to its important strategic position in the system of Turkish possessions in the Balkans, Montenegro in the 17th century began to attract increasing attention from European governments interested in the fight against Turkey.
The Montenegrin metropolitans, princes and governors, for their part, hoped to rely on outside help in the fight against the Turks. The close proximity of the Venetian Republic, which waged war with the Ottoman Empire, the economic ties of the Montenegrins with Kotor and other centers of Primorye - all this contributed to the establishment of close political relations between Montenegro and Venice.
Together with the Dalmatians, Brd and Herzegovinian tribes, the Montenegrins undertook an anti-Turkish offensive during the Kandyan War between Turkey and Venice over Crete. In 1648 The Montenegrin assembly decided to establish a protectorate of Venice over Montenegro, provided that the republic accepted certain obligations. However, this act had no real consequences due to the failure of Venice's military actions against the Turks.
The anti-Turkish movement in Montenegro took on a wide scope during the war of the Holy League with Turkey. Venice, which had been significantly weakened by this time, hoped to wage the war in Dalmatia and Montenegro using the forces of the local population. Therefore, the Venetians used all means to persuade the Montenegrin ruler and tribal leaders to revolt against the Turks. To prevent it, Skadar Pasha with a large army came out against the Montenegrins and inflicted on them in 1685. defeat in the battle of Vrtelskaya. By this, however, he could not force the Montenegrins to submit. In 1688 The armed struggle of the Montenegrin tribes against the Turks intensified again. In the battle near the village of Krusy, they inflicted a serious defeat on the Turks. After this, the Montenegrin gathering, represented by a significant part of the tribes led by Metropolitan Vissarion, decided to come under the rule of Venice and ask the lord to send his army to Cetinje. Clashes with Turkish troops continued in the following years. But Venice did not provide the Montenegrins with sufficient military assistance. Arrived in Cetinje in 1691. a small military detachment could not protect Montenegro from Turkish attacks. In 1692 Turkish troops again invaded Montenegro, captured the Cetinje Monastery and destroyed it.
After this, the liberation movement of the Montenegrins began to gradually weaken. Left to their own devices by Venice, they were forced to recognize the sovereignty of the Turkish government. However, the Porte never managed to establish lasting power over the Montenegrin tribes. In the 18th century, the struggle of the Montenegrins against the Turks entered a new phase. It is now being waged for complete liberation from Turkish rule and the creation of its own state organization.
Completion
Began in the middle of the 14th century. The Turkish offensive on Europe radically changed the fate of the Balkan peoples of South-Eastern Europe. By the beginning of the 16th century. The Ottoman Empire included: Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Albania. Moldavia and Wallachia were turned into vassal states of Turkey.
Turkish domination delayed the historical development of the Balkan peoples and led to the conservation of feudal relations among them.
From the end of 1610, popular protests in Anatolia gradually lost their strength. Long wars, uprisings and brutal repressions that befell participants in the Jelali movement had a heavy impact on the economic life of the country. In many areas of the Balkans and Asia Minor, the population declined in the first half of the 17th century. to the level that existed at the beginning of the 16th century. Some settled residents returned to nomadism again. The pace of development of cities and urban crafts also slowed down. Even such large centers as Bursa, Ankara, Kayseri, Sivas had difficulty recovering from the damage caused during the years of unrest. At the end of the 40s of the 17th century. the amount of tax revenues to the treasury remained at the level of the 90s of the 16th century, amounting to only 360 million akche.
The consequences of changes in agrarian relations also turned out to be contradictory. The decomposition of the Sipahi system and the beginning of the formation of private-feudal land ownership led to a slight increase in the marketability of agriculture, but this process also had another consequence - the impoverishment of the peasants and their loss of hereditary rights to cultivated lands. In his first instruction (risal), intended for Sultan Murad IV (1623-1640), Kochibey wrote: In a word, such oppression and oppression in which the poor villagers find themselves have never existed in any country in the world, in any state... The cold sighs of the oppressed crush the houses; the tears of the eyes of the sufferers drown the state in the waters of destruction. In the second risal, written a few years later, he again returns to the same theme: Your servants, the rayya, have become extremely poor and fled from the villages. Since the Sipahi system could no longer act as a source of military strength and a factor in stabilizing the internal situation, the Porte was forced to increase the number of standing troops and especially the Janissary corps. In 1595, 25 thousand people were recorded in the Janissary registers, and three years later - 35 thousand people. In the first half of the 17th century. there were already up to 50 thousand soldiers in the corps. The previous system of recruiting standing troops on the basis of devshirme was not able to ensure such a multiplication of the ranks of the Janissaries, and in the 30s of the 17th century. Porta actually abandoned it completely. By this time, the corps was replenished by the children of the Janissaries, small traders and artisans, people from the village.
The rapid growth of the state-paid army became an unbearable burden on public finances: increased spending on the army led to depletion of the treasury. Due to a lack of silver, soldiers began to receive salaries irregularly, in damaged coins, and payment of money was often delayed for a long time. The Janissaries responded to the infringement of their rights with open revolts, which showed that the previously existing balance of power in the Ottoman political system had been disrupted. The less combat-ready the sipahi units became, the more dependent the Sultan and his ministers became on the whims of the Janissaries. There are no government authorities in the state: it is held in the hands of the paid Janissaries,” Kochibey complained.
The need for money, not satisfied by low salaries, forced the Janissaries to turn to side earnings - crafts and trade. Since new activities began to bring them the main income, the desire of the soldiers to fight fell and they tried to avoid participating in campaigns under any pretext. At the same time, the Janissaries resolutely opposed any attempts by the authorities to somehow limit their privileged position. Taking advantage of this circumstance, warring feudal factions constantly incited the Janissaries to revolt and overthrow unwanted ministers, viziers and the sultans themselves. Only during 1617-1623. As a result of the Janissary riots, four sultans replaced the throne. Such events gave contemporaries a reason to write about the Janissaries that they were as dangerous in peacetime as they were weak during war.
Many facts reported by contemporaries indicate decomposition state apparatus. The successors of Suleiman I took little part in governing the state, shifting all concerns onto the shoulders of the great viziers. However, the capabilities of the first ministers turned out to be very limited. The Sultan's palace and especially the harem, which provided the shortest access to the ruler of the empire, turned into the main centers of intrigue among the courtiers in the struggle for power. Already under Suleiman, Roksolana, who had once been driven from Podolia into captivity and became the Sultan’s beloved wife, had a great influence on the activities of the Porte. By supporting her favorite Rustem Pasha as grand vizier, she cleared the way to the Sultan's throne for her son, the future Selim II (1566-1574). In subsequent years, this practice turned into a stable tradition.
Proclaimed sultan, the weak-willed and superstitious Mehmed III (1595-1603) left the management of state affairs to his mother Safiye. As a valid sultan (sultana-mother), Safiye changed 11 grand viziers on behalf of her son during her 8 years of reign. Even more influential was Kösem Sultan (d. 1651), the favorite of Ahmed I (1603-1617) and the mother of Osman II (1617, 1618-1622), Murad IV (1624-1640) and Ibrahim I (1640-1648). For many years, at her whim and the machinations of people from her circle, she actually determined the policy of the Porte, removing and appointing grand viziers and other ministers, thereby confusing and complicating the situation in the empire to the extreme. Only when 6-year-old Mehmed IV (1648-1687) came to the throne did his mother manage to overcome the influence of the old sultana. In popular memory, the first half of the 17th century. remained as the era of women's rule, although it is more correct to talk about the dominance of the Sultan's favorites and harem managers - kizlar agasy (lord of the girls).
From the end of the 16th century. Separatist protests intensified in the provinces of the empire. Taking advantage of the weakening of central power, large feudal lords broke from obedience and turned into independent rulers. The Sultan's power, interested mainly in the regular receipt of tax collections from each eyalet into the treasury, usually did not interfere in their management. Hence the complete arbitrariness of the local governors-pashas, whose power was almost uncontrolled and unlimited.
Under these conditions, the Sultan's court began to use Islam more often and more widely as the most important means of preserving the unity and integrity of the empire. Accordingly, the role of the ulema and their main authority, Sheikh-ul-Islam, increased, more and more attention was paid to compliance with Sharia norms, but the scope of application of state legislation decreased. Although such measures could not overcome the internal disunity of the empire, they contributed to strengthening the control of the clergy over all spheres of socio-political and cultural life.
The Sultan's authorities tried to prevent further growth of crisis phenomena in the life of the empire by continuing wars of conquest. In 1576, Murad III (1574-1595) moved his army against Safavid Iran with the goal of capturing Transcaucasia and establishing control over the Volga-Caspian trade route connecting Iran with Russia. The hostilities, which lasted for 14 years, ended with the fact that the Iranian Shah Abbas, forced to simultaneously wage war in Khorasan against the Uzbeks, agreed to conclude the Istanbul Peace Treaty of 1590, according to which he ceded Eastern Georgia and Eastern Armenia, almost all of Azerbaijan and part of Western Iran.
Two years later, a new long war began, this time against Austria for Hungarian lands. In 1605, taking advantage of the fact that Ottoman forces were concentrated in Europe, and the Jelali turmoil was raging in Anatolia, Shah Abbas resumed military operations in Transcaucasia. The Porte had to urgently resolve its conflict with the Habsburgs. The fight against them showed that despite the enormous funds spent on maintaining the Sultan’s army, in military-technical terms it was increasingly lagging behind the armies of European states, which in terms of the pace and level of their development were increasingly ahead of the Ottoman Empire. Countries that previously bought their peace of mind at the price of tribute and periodic gifts are gradually getting rid of such humiliating dependence. In this regard, the peace treaty in Sitvatorok (1606), which ended the Austro-Turkish war, is indicative. Under the terms of the treaty, the Sultan was forced not only to free Austria from the annual tribute of 30 thousand ducats, paid since 1547, but also for the first time to recognize the Christian state as an equal partner in a peace treaty. A few years later, the Habsburgs achieved significant trade privileges for their subjects.
Trying to exploit the contradictions between the European powers, the Porte granted important economic and political privileges to England and Holland. In the first half of the 17th century. For these countries, capitulations were renewed several times, expanding the rights of European merchants to Levantine trade. The Ottoman rulers hoped that in return for trade benefits they would receive support from these states in implementing their own plans of conquest.
Meanwhile, the Iran-Turkey conflict continued. By 1612, Shah Abbas took away a significant part of Transcaucasia from the Turks, and in 1624 all of Iraq with Baghdad. But Sultan Murad IV, who had just ascended the throne, hastened to resume hostilities. After several years of war in Qasri Shirin, a peace treaty was signed in 1639, according to which Iraq and Baghdad again passed to the Ottoman Empire; in addition, the Turks retained Western Georgia, Western Armenia and part of Kurdistan. The Turkish-Iranian border established by this agreement remained almost unchanged in the future. Simultaneously with the war against Iran, the Porte launched military operations in Europe against gentry Poland. The main source of the conflict was the dispute over Ukrainian lands. The initiators of the war clearly hoped that Poland, involved in the pan-European Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), would not be able to resist Ottoman aggression. However, the long siege of the Polish camp near Khotyn in 1621, thanks to the courage and courage of the Zaporozhye Cossacks, did not bring success to the Sultan’s army. Having suffered heavy losses, she was forced to retreat.
The failure of the Khotyn campaign led the young Sultan Osman II to the conclusion about the need for reforms in the system government controlled and in the army. The Sultan wanted to achieve the strengthening of central power and restoration of the military power of the empire by refusing to staff the bureaucracy and permanent troops with the help of devshirme. He intended to carry out the Turkization of the army and government bodies by replenishing their ranks with people from Muslim families in Anatolia. At the same time, he hoped to limit the increased role of the ulema by reducing their material privileges. However, the very first attempts to implement these plans caused sharp opposition within the ruling elite, among the Janissaries and the Muslim clergy.
The Janissary rebellion cost the lives of the Sultan and his closest advisers. The second appearance on the throne of Mustafa I (1617-1618, 1622-1623), completely unable to rule the country, gave rise to a negative reaction in Anatolia. Its most striking expression was the rebellion of the governor of Erzurum, Abaza Mehmed Pasha, during which several Janissary garrisons were destroyed. Following the outbreak of unrest in the Asian provinces, power in Istanbul changed once again: 11-year-old Murad IV was elevated to the Sultan's throne. However, plans for reform were abandoned, and the course of continuing military campaigns was maintained.
The situation in Istanbul was also known to the new rulers of Russia from the House of Romanov. However, they had to take into account that the Deulin truce of 1618. did not yet mean the final refusal of the magnate elite of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from plans for intervention in Russia. Therefore, the Moscow government was concerned about maintaining peaceful relations with the Ottoman Empire. This course can be clearly seen in the events associated with the fight for Azov. In 1637 Don Cossacks, taking advantage of the Iranian-Turkish war, besieged Azov and, after a two-month siege, took the fortress.
In the summer of 1641, having ended the war with Iran, the Turks moved towards Azov. The siege was carried out according to all the rules of military art. For four months, about 6 thousand Cossacks defended the fortress from the Ottoman troops, who had numerous artillery. Having failed to achieve success and having suffered serious losses from Cossack attacks, the besiegers were forced to retreat, but in 1642 Moscow, not wanting to aggravate relations with the Porte, ordered the Cossacks to surrender Azov.
However, the rulers of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, after their success at Khotyn, preferred to maintain peaceful relations with the Sultan, although back in 1623 the Polish ambassador in Istanbul K. Zbarazhsky came to the conclusion that the power of the Ottoman Empire was greater in words than in deeds.
Source: http://turkey-info.ru/forum/stati145/usilenie-separatizma-t3008233.html.
- Ottoman Empire in the 17th century
- Ottoman Empire in the 17th century
- borders of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century map
Ottoman Empire in the 17th century
Ottoman Empire in the 16th-17th centuriesBy the beginning of the 16th century. The military-feudal Ottoman Empire brought almost the entire Balkan Peninsula under its rule. Only on the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic Sea did the Dubrovnik Republic retain its independence, formally recognizing, however, after the Battle of Mohács (1526) the supreme power of Turkey. The Venetians also managed to retain their possessions in the eastern part
Adriatic - the Ionian Islands and the island of Crete, as well as a narrow strip of land with the cities of Zadar, Split, Kotor, Trogir, Sibenik.
The Turkish conquest played a negative role in the historical fate of the Balkan peoples, delaying their socio-economic development. To the class antagonism of feudal society was added religious antagonism between Muslims and Christians, which essentially expressed the relationship between conquerors and conquered peoples. The Turkish government and feudal lords oppressed the Christian peoples of the Balkan Peninsula and committed arbitrariness.
Persons of the Christian faith did not have the right to serve in government institutions, carry weapons, and for showing disrespect for the Muslim religion they were forcibly converted to Islam or severely punished. To strengthen its power, the Turkish government resettled tribes of nomadic Turks from Asia Minor to the Balkans. They settled in fertile valleys, strategically important areas, displacing local residents. Sometimes the Christian population was evicted by the Turks from cities, especially large ones. Another means of strengthening Turkish dominance was the Islamization of the conquered population. Many “post-Turkish” came from among the people captured and sold into slavery, for whom conversion to Islam was the only way to regain freedom (according to Turkish law, Muslims could not be slaves)². Needing military forces, the Turkish government formed a Janissary corps from Christians who converted to Islam, which was the Sultan's guard. At first, the Janissaries were recruited from among captured youths. Later, systematic recruitment of the healthiest and most beautiful Christian boys began, who were converted to Islam and sent to study in Asia Minor. In an effort to preserve their property and privileges, many Balkan feudal lords, mainly small and medium-sized ones, as well as urban artisans and merchants, converted to Islam. A significant part of the “post-Turkish people” gradually lost contact with their people and adopted the Turkish language and culture. All this led to the numerical growth of the Turkish people and strengthened the power of the Turks in the conquered lands. Serbs, Greeks, and Albanians who converted to Islam sometimes occupied high positions and became major military leaders. Among the rural population, Islamization became widespread only in Bosnia, some regions of Macedonia and Albania, but the change in religion for the most part did not lead to separation from their nationality, to the loss of their native language, native customs and culture. The majority of the working population of the Balkan Peninsula, and above all the peasantry, even in those cases when they were forced to convert to Islam, were not assimilated by the Turks.
The entire structure of the feudal Turkish state was subordinated to the interests of waging wars of conquest. The Ottoman Empire was the only true military power of the Middle Ages. The military success of the Turks, who created a strong army, was facilitated by a favorable international situation for them - the collapse of the Mongol state, the decline of Byzantium, and contradictions between the states of medieval Europe. But the huge empire created by the Turks had no national basis. The dominant people, the Turks, constituted a minority of its population. At the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries, a protracted crisis of the feudal Ottoman Empire began, which determined its decline and subsequently facilitated the penetration of European colonialists into Turkey and other countries under its domination.
How many years does it usually take to collapse an empire?
And how many wars does this require? In the case of the Ottoman Empire, it took 400 years and at least two dozen wars, including the First World War that began in Sarajevo.
I can’t even believe how many of the most pressing problems of today’s Europe have their roots in that national-political-religious node that remained in the place where the Ottoman Empire once stretched.
Section I: Ethnosocial and religious policy Ports in the Balkan countries
1.1 The situation of the Orthodox Church (using the example of Bulgaria)
1.1.1 Bulgaria within the Patriarchate of Constantinople
The first metropolitan of the Tarnovo diocese within the Patriarchate of Constantinople was Ignatius, the former metropolitan of Nicomedia: his signature is the 7th in the list of representatives of the Greek clergy at the Florence Council of 1439. In one of the lists of dioceses of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the mid-15th century, the Tarnovo Metropolitan occupies a high 11th place (after Thessaloniki); Three episcopal sees are subordinate to him: Cherven, Lovech and Preslav. Until the mid-nineteenth century, the Tarnovo diocese covered most of the lands of Northern Bulgaria and extended south to the Maritsa River, including the areas of Kazanlak, Stara and Nova Zagora. The bishops of Preslav (until 1832, when Preslav became a metropolitan), Cherven (until 1856, when Cherven was also elevated to the rank of metropolitan), Lovchansky and Vrachansky were subordinate to the Tarnovo metropolitan.
The Patriarch of Constantinople, considered the supreme representative before the Sultan of all Orthodox Christians (millet bashi), had broad rights in the spiritual, civil and economic spheres, but remained under the constant control of the Ottoman government and was personally responsible for the loyalty of his flock to the Sultan's authority.
Church subordination to Constantinople was accompanied by increased Greek influence in the Bulgarian lands. Greek bishops were appointed to the departments, who in turn supplied Greek clergy to monasteries and parish churches, which resulted in the practice of conducting services in Greek, which was incomprehensible to most of the flock. Church positions were often filled with the help of large bribes; local church taxes (more than 20 of their types are known) were levied arbitrarily, often using violent methods. In case of refusal of payments, the Greek hierarchs closed the churches, anathematized the disobedient, and presented them to the Ottoman authorities as unreliable and subject to relocation to another area or taking into custody. Despite the numerical superiority of the Greek clergy, in a number of dioceses the local population managed to retain a Bulgarian abbot. Many monasteries (Etropolsky, Rilsky, Dragalevsky, Kurilovsky, Kremikovsky, Cherepishsky, Glozhensky, Kuklensky, Elenishsky and others) preserved the Church Slavonic language in worship.
In the first centuries of Ottoman rule, there was no ethnic hostility between the Bulgarians and Greeks; There are many examples of joint struggle against conquerors who equally oppressed Orthodox peoples. Thus, Metropolitan of Tarnovo Dionysius (Rali) became one of the leaders of the preparation of the first Tarnovo uprising of 1598 and attracted the bishops Jeremiah of Rusensky, Feofan Lovchansky, Spiridon of Shumen (Preslavsky) and Methodius of Vrachansky subordinate to him. 12 Tarnovo priests and 18 influential laymen, together with the Metropolitan, vowed to remain faithful to the cause of the liberation of Bulgaria until their death. In the spring or summer of 1596, a secret organization was created, which included dozens of both clergy and secular persons. Greek influence in the Bulgarian lands was largely due to the influence of Greek-speaking culture and the influence of the growing process of “Hellenic revival”.
Source: http://www.refsru.com/referat-25945-1.html
Ottoman Empire in the 17th century
Ottoman Empirein 1574 r. The Turks occupied Tunisia (having killed the Spaniards), Ottoman aggression in Europe petered out.
At 1574 r. Selim II Soft ingloriously “died from a supermundane feast and comfortable life”15, and his weak-willed and alcohol-prone son Murad III (1566 - 1595) ascended the Ottoman throne. During his reign, the Turks were once again fortunate to beat the Safavids in the war of 1578 - 1590. And after the Peace of Istanbul we will join the Port of Transcaucasia and Azerbaijan. They sold 100 thousand in slave markets. captives (Georgians, Virmens, Azerbaijanis, Persians, Kurds, etc.), and this is the remaining successful success of the Turkish army.
The reign of the empire began to collapse, the budget deficit became 200 million akche (!), the issuance of coins began, and then a real famine erupted with tens of thousands of victims, like the unpopular Asian provinces of the Ottoman Porte . Driven into a remote corner, Murad_III started the war with Austria (1592 - 1606) and died immediately.
The Habsburg War ended in 1606. In addition, Safavid Iran after the large-scale reforms of Abbas (1587 - 1629) took enemy revenge from the Turks. The Persians fought against Azerbaijan, Georgia, Virginia and Kurdistan (1603 - 1612). Mass riots of the hungry and sick began in the Turkish region itself.
Even more confused by the situation was the religious Sultan Ahmed I (1603 - 1617), who, due to the decline of “humanity”, described the murders of the brothers of the new Sultan upon his accession to the throne. Now they were kept in isolation in special cages where wives were not allowed to enter. Since the eldest man of the family had fallen into power due to the Turkic steppe traditions, the Ottoman throne began to be seated not by the Blues, but through the brothers of the great Sultan, whose skins were obviously not known to any lesser powers them, and on the right side of the living ones. The transfer of real power to the sultans by the viziers and janissaries became a major issue.
Taxes increased 10 - 15 times, and in 1572 r. Moldova rebelled in 1594. - Wallachia, in 1596 1598 r.
Bulgaria. Stretch 1595 - 1610 rubles. The insurrection was fought in Anatolia, Pivdennaya Serbia, Montenegro, Herzegovina, Morea, Dalmatia, Albania, and in 1625. The Ottoman Empire was devastated by a greedy plague epidemic.
Having realized that they were in control, the sultans tried violence again, increasing it to 100 thousand. thugs of their guards (Yanichars, Sipahi), but this led to complete devastation of the state's finances, and the penny-worth of the warriors became pitifully meager, so they began to engage in trade and farming to survive. The combat potential of such a war has fallen catastrophically, and wars have remained completely unpossible.
Turechchina was cursed by the crooked raids of the Ukrainian Cossacks-Cossacks, who captured Christians and cruelly robbed and impoverished Muslims. On their chovny-gulls at 1606 r. The Cossacks acquired Bulgarian Varna in 1614. Sinop and Trebizond were destroyed in 1616. captured the Crimean Kafa (they freed up to 40 thousand Orthodox slaves), and in 1615 They sank the Turkish flotilla in the Danube (capturing the Ottoman pasha) and fought on to Istanbul (!), plundering and burning down all the capital's ports. “It’s impossible to say what a great fear there is here. 16 Cossack ships arrived these days, reaching all the way to the Pompey Colony at the mouth of the Bosporus, captured Karamusol, burned and plundered the local villages, and so there was fear. "16
The Ottomans wanted to punish the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (on the teren of which Zaporizka Sich was officially dissolved) and in 1620.