Diskussion:Tımar
engl. Stub (wurde gelöscht) Bearbeiten
Ottoman land tenure . Grant of lands or revenues by the Ottoman Sultan to an individual in compensation for his services, especially military service. The Timar-system was introduced by Osman I. He granted his troops with land tenure. Later this system was expanded - by law - from Murad I. for his Sipahi.
The timar-holder acted as an agent of the central ottoman government in supervising the possession, transfer, and rental of lands within his territory and collecting tax revenue, in return for military service. A timar was not necessarily made up of contiguous property, but could consist of property scattered among different villages.
There was a similar system in the arab world - igta.
The last years of Mehmed II (1451-81), which is generally referred to as a "land reform" in Ottoman historiography The freeholds, the main target of the reform, were 'revenue-holdings' not land-holdings. The reform brought no fundamental change in the existing revenue holding system, let alone in the land relations, which remained entirely outside the scope of the reform. The reform was no more than a somewhat superficial "fiscal" reform, which eventually resulted in failure upon his death, revealing the vulnerability of the positions of the sultans in their struggle for power against the centrifugal forces in the Ottoman Empire.
see also:
Fiefdom
stub Category:Ottoman Empire
ÇIFT-HANE SYSTEM Bearbeiten
WIRD BALD EIN EIGENES LEMMA
ÇIFT-HANE SYSTEM IN MEDIEVAL - cift-hane - Çifthane System - Cifthane System the most basic unit of rural Ottoman social and economic structure. The çift-hane remained a method of rural colonization. The çift-hane system: the organization of Ottoman rural society
less well-known cift-hane, 'peasant family tax unit', as the basis on which the. rural tax system rested.
Firstly, peasants in the villages of Balikesir held an average field (tarla) of approximately 3.5 hectares. The traditional cift-hane system continued to work both in ciftliks and among fields tilled by the peasants.
Secondly, `the non-peasant city dwellers' posessed more gardens (bahces) than peasants, and the estimated value per donum of those gardens was higher than that of the peasants' fields.
enclosure walls reminiscent of a ciftlik structure.
The basic unit of production was the cift-hane, the family farm that incorporated sufficient land to sustain a family with the labor of a pair of oxen
cift-hane (Ott.) unit incorporating a household and land that could be worked by a pair of oxen ciftlik
The Ottoman Landholding System One must begin with a brief explanation of the system of land tenure and rural infrastructure under the Ottomans. In the period of the first occupation (ca. 1500–1688), virtually all arable land was owned by the state (miri).
The basic unit of production was the çift-hane, the family farm that incorporated sufficient land to sustain a family with the labor of a pair of oxen.
This was held under a type of lease (tapu) from the state in return for keeping the land under cultivation and paying taxes; the peasant had the usufruct of the land and could pass it on to his children.
State revenues from arable land held in this way could be assigned to members of the military as timars; the timar-holder acted as an agent of the central government in supervising the possession, transfer, and rental of lands within his territory and collecting tax revenue, in return for military service.
A timar was not necessarily made up of contiguous property, but could consist of property scattered among different villages.
Arable land not already cultivated under the tapu system was rented out by the state. Farmlands with no permanent settled population, often cultivated by neighboring villages as reserve land, were designated as mezra’a. Once registered for a certain amount of revenue, these could be assigned as timars. Another category of land was that in which the revenue was assigned to a religious foundation, or vakf. There was also some limited freehold arable land (mülk), mainly acquired through Sultanic grants.134 While these are the basic characteristics of the classic Ottoman landholding system, the reality, particularly in outlying provinces of the empire, could vary enormously, depending on the physical environment and the nature of the socioeconomic regime at the time of conquest. In the late 16th and 17th centuries, the timar system was in some areas increasingly replaced by the development of tax farms and the creation of private estates, or çiftliks, cultivated by sharecroppers.
There was little private property under the Ottoman system.
Forschungsarbeit Bearbeiten
Der folgende englische Aufsatz wurde aus der engl. wiki gelöscht, weil sie mit dem Formulierungsstil nicht einverstanden waren. Nach Umformulierungen würden sie ihn dort aber auch wieder aufnehmen. Ich werde ihn irgendwann mal für die deutsche wiki übersetzten: ANGANG DER FORSCHUNGSARBEIT: Timar was a form of land tenure in Ottoman Empire, consisting in grant of lands or revenues by the Ottoman Sultan to an individual in compensation for his services, especially military services. The timar system was introduced by Osman I. He granted his troops with land tenure. Later this system was expanded from Murad I for his Sipahi.
The timar-holder acted as an agent of the central ottoman government in supervising the possession, transfer, and rental of lands within his territory and collecting tax revenue, in return for military service. A timar was not necessarily made up of contiguous property, but could consist of property scattered among different villages.
There was a similar system in the arab world, known as igta.
Introduction
This essay aims to outline the general characteristics of the timar system, and further search for the origins of the corruption that ruined the Ottoman Empire. The timar system possesses great importance having played a significant role in both the rising and the declining of Ottoman power, and has to be understood in order to fully grasp the system in which the Empire functioned.
The economy of the Ottoman Empire was mainly based on farming. Especially in the first eras of the empire the Ottomans were not involved in trading and merchandise. The trade of the empire was usually handled by Christian minorities, mainly Armenian and Greek. Instead, the Ottoman economic policy was based on war and conquering new lands. Until the Turks started to develop and involve themselves in other areas, their wealth was based around the land system.
The longevity of the Ottoman Empire was mostly dependant on its economic and military systems. Timar was the most important of these systems which system played an important role during the rise of the Empire, by providing a good income from the government lands as well as a huge military force built of cavalrymen. It would be possible to say that the Ottoman Empire owed its military superiority to the timar system.
By the beginning of the seventeenth century, the timar system had descended into full-scale corruption, thus started the declining era of the Empire. Due to the lack and subjectivity of the reports on this matter, neither the reasons nor the scale of corruption were ever totally understood by Ottoman historians. Thus claiming the corruption irreparable.
Introduction to the Timar system
It was not possible for the Central Government to manage all the lands owned by the Ottoman Empire. Not only it would require a lot of organization, but it would also be an inefficient way of working the land. Therefore the government gave (or loaned) land to certain people. These people were called reaya and were expected to work the land and pay a certain amount of their income as tax.
Starting with Osman Gazi and Fatih Sultan Mehmed, the Padishah’s began to exchange the right to collect the tax given by the reaya, in return for certain services, preferably military. The people who were given this privilege were called timariots (timar holders). The timariots did not own the land, and the reaya were not their slaves. Instead of land, they owned the rights to collect the taxes, and in exchange for this income, they had to support the army with a number of cavalrymen, called the sipahis. The number of sipahis the timariots needed to supply depended on the amount of income the timars provided. As a result of this system, the Government was able to efficiently manage the economy, and call upon an army of timarli sipahi’s when needed.
What were the roots of the timar system and how did it differ from the feudal system in Europe?
It would be wrong to search for the roots of the timar system in feudal Europe for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that the serfs in the feudal system are like slaves of the landowning class. In the timar system, the timariots, unlike the landowners in feudalism do not own the land, only the right to collect the tax from the reaya. The people on the other hand can not be considered as slaves of the timariots, but free people who have rented the land in exchange for paying tax. Another difference is that feudal landowners have a political power over their land. They are able to apply their own law, and assemble their own force. With this force they can even fight against the king. Therefore in a feudal system the power is not central, but consists of many small units. The same thing cannot be said in the Ottoman Empire. The central rule is absolute, and the sipahis are forces of the Sultan, not the timariots.
Instead of feudalism, the roots of this system can be found in previous Islamic countries, under the name of ikta system. In the Islam law one type of land is owned by the government to use or give to certain high-ranking people. These people would pay tax to the government in return. This tradition was adopted by the Seljuks before the Ottoman Empire. The lands were called ikta, and were very similar to timars. As a result it is possible to mention that the ikta system was a previous version of the timar system. Later on the Ottomans used this system to create a massive military force, converting it to the timar system.
More about the timar system
The timar system meant that the farming income of the government was in the hands of the reaya. If the reaya stopped working the land, the economy would be damaged. To prevent this, if a timar was not harvested for a certain period of time (usually three years) the reaya and the timariot would be replaced by law. The only exception was when the land was being rested, and during this period the reaya would not be expected to plant any crops. In order to help the reaya during this period, the timariots would not collect tax. The law meant that the timar had to be worked as efficiently as possible, contributing greatly to the economy of the Empire.
The timars differed in sizes, and were categorized into three groups determined by the amount of income they provided. If a timar’s yearly income exceeded 100.000 akçe the timar would be called has and it would usually be given to sultans, beys, viziers or princes. Timars that had a yearly income between 20.000 and 100.000 akçe were called zeamet, and these were given to high-ranking officials. The rest were simply called timars. In times of war, each timarli sipahi was supposed to bring one soldier armed and mounted for each 3000 akçe income. For the zeamet and has sipahis this amount would be 5000 akçe. In the best times of the Ottoman Empire, the army could call up to 100.000 cavalrymen.
When a timariot died, his eldest son would be given the choice to replace the father. Otherwise, the land would be given to another person, usually someone loyal to the Sultan. This way the quality and the loyalty of the timariots were kept at a maximum. The system also contributed to the preservation of the throne. The army of the Empire consisted of kapıkulu soldiers who received a salary by the government. These men could have a great influence on the politics of the empire, but this was prevented by keeping the balance of forces (timarli sipahis and kapıkulu soldiers) even.
It is very important to mention that an empire run by such system would inevitably depend on war. In order to have a larger economy and military, the Ottomans needed to conquer more land. As more territories were controlled by the government, more timars could be loaned. This meant more farming income and more cavalrymen.
How the system becomes unstable
Sources
Because of the fact that very little reports were made by the government on these issues , the amount of sources on this matter are limited to a minimum. Most of the knowledge about the problems in the state come from a very few first hand sources. Moreover, these first hand sources are generally very omitted, since at the time generally every source was reviewed and archived at the royal palace. Not many could afford to present the situation objectively in front of the Sultan. The information available on how and why the timar system collapsed is mostly based on records of Koçi Bey, the advisor of Sultan Murad IV.
If most of the knowledge on why the timar system collapsed depends on Koçi Bey, it is crucial that we examine the reliability of his works.
Sultan Murad IV. (1623–40)
In order to assess the reliability of Koçi Bey, understanding Murad IV is necessary. Murad IV is known for his attempts to restore the authority of the state and end the corruption that had reached a climax. He was brought to power only at the age of eleven, and for a long time, his mother and relatives ruled the empire through him. However, this situation gave power to the military and civil autocracy. In this period of time, the empire fell into conflict. Following the Persian invasions in Iraq, many rebellions occurred in Anatolia. There was a Janissary revolt in 1631, where the Janissaries got into the palace and killed many along with the Grand Vizier.
This situation triggered Murad IV to restore authority and take a strict rule. About a year after the Janissary revolt, Murad IV had the new Grand Vizier, who was appointed by the Janissaries during the revolt, beheaded. He killed 500 military officials who had tried to benefit from the instability in his first years. To suppress the uprising, he had 20.000 rebels executed. It is true that his ways were cruel, but in the long run Murad IV worked in order to restore the Empire’s old days.
After retaking some territory from the Persians, he concentrated on the causes of corruption. Only if he had lived longer he might have improved the empire, but he died at the age of 27.
Koçi Bey’s tract, which is used as a first hand source by almost all of the Ottoman historians, was presented to Murad IV as a document to help understand the reasons that caused corruption in the empire. Because Koçi Bey, as the advisor of the Sultan, had closely known the structure of the Ottoman Government, his work proved very useful. The fact that Murad IV was searching for the problems made it easier for Koçi Bey to present his work as unbiased as it could be. Even though omittion was minimal, some historians have argued that some parts of Koçi Bey’s tract were not very realistic. The reason for this was that Murad IV was aiming to repair the system, whereas it had become impossible to do so.
“It is true that Koçi Bey presents the course of corruption in the Ottoman timar system in an accurate and timely manner. However, when it comes to his ideas on how to improve this system, it is not possible for us to agree with him. In fact, his suggestions and calculations seem to be extremely optimistic, and in some cases clash with his own ideas, and the situation of the state.”
Omer Lutfi Barkan, in his article on the timar system clearly explains that Koçi Bey’s advices suggesting the improvement of the system are vague and unrealistic. However, his work, being one of the rare sources about this matter, is very valuable for a historian researching the causes of the corruption.
Because Koçi Bey’s tract is not yet fully translated into modern Turkish, it is not used as a primary source for this essay. However, the sources used including Omer Lutfi Barkan’s articles, are second hand sources that mainly base their study around the work of Koçi Bey.
How did the timar system become corrupt?
According to many sources, the general reason for the system to get instable was the lack of organization in the Central Government bureau. The system required a lot of organizing and archiving in order to run efficiently. At first, when the Ottoman faction had not gained immense territories, it was easy for the records to be taken neatly. All the units of land were noted down, along with who they were assigned to. When a timariot died, it was made sure he was replaced, and the records archived. When a timar was given to a certain person, it would be carefully taken note of. This organized system did not give room to corruption.
Later on however, as more territories were conquered, cracks in the system appeared. Because the control was centralized, the Central Government Bureau was in charge of organizing the whole timar system. As the government did not pay enough attention in this area, instability was triggered.
The lack of organization lead to many mistakes inside the system. For instance, when the records of a timar without a timariot were not reentered as it was assigned to a new person, mistakes such as multiple emplacements occurred. In worse cases, timars without timariots were assigned to certain people through various frauds. Generally these malpractices were caused by the chaos in the central government bureau.
Bribing and Fraud
When in the first eras of the empire timariots were concerned with honor and fame, they were later on replaced by a type more interested in trade and wealth. As wealth had become a more important factor, the timar system was seen by certain men as an opportunity to make money. These men found ways of emplacing themselves on timars. Thus, where timars should have been given to their rightful owners, they were awarded to corrupt men in return for bribes. Because the timariots, who owned the lands through fraud, were too concerned with selfish intentions unlike the old, loyal sipahis, the corruption quickly reached extreme levels where it became possible for them to collect the tax from a timar during peace time, but at times of war find ways of transferring the timar under some middlemen who would go to battle instead of the timariot himself. These men would return the lands to the timariot after the war, letting him benefit from this system without giving exchange.
In fact, the corruption began during the Murad III period (1574–95), when high-ranking officials started to literally put timars for sale. This was led mainly by the Empire having reached its territorial limits, and no longer being able to conquer more land. When the number of timars stopped increasing, the ones who were seeking timars directed their attention to the present lands. The rising level of competition for timars further increased the scales of bribing, and as mentioned before, the timars were no longer given to their rightful owners. With the passage of time, this caused the timariot class to decay and begin to involve uncultured and ignorant men.
According to Koçi Bey, after the lands started to be exchanged for money, many changes occurred in the behavior of the timariot class. The ambition to earn and consume more in the general public showed itself among the timariots as well, and the old sipahis who went after fame and glory in the battlefields soon faded away. The timars with large incomes fell under the hands of government officials, whom could not possibly supply the army with large scales of sipahis. The number of government officials with timars, which had been 124 in the year 1524, had increased to 468 people when the Koçi Bey tract was written. As a result, the corruption had terrible effects on the army. The timarli sipahi army which had almost reached 200.000 men at its best times had only around ten thousand men left during the Murad IV period. The sipahis, who were never used at jobs such as digging trenches and carrying equipment started to be used as legmen.
The same collapse showed itself in terms of social conditions too. The old type of sipahis, as loyal and educated, contributed to their lands in many ways. They maintained the patronage of the reaya, as well as the security, the order, and the refinement of the timar. The same social guarantees could not possibly be expected from the new impostors.
Another fact was that the traditional sipahis refused to use firearms when it was started to be used throughout Europe. The Ottoman army was in need of reform, but it could not reform the sipahi army. Following this and the falling numbers of the sipahi force, the government was left with no choice but to depend on the kapıkulu soldiers. The solution was found in increasing the number of kapıkulu’s in order to fill the gap in the army. This by and by meant the growing influence of the kapıkulu’s, and in the course of time their intervention in political and social affairs. Koçi Bey points out that the limits in the freedom of the central government caused by certain rebellious actions of the kapıkulu class occurred because of the absence of a loyal timarli sipahi army.
The failure of the attempts of reviving the system The work of Koçi Bey was presented to Murad IV, along with the suggestions that could improve and return the system back to its old days. Murad IV adopted these ideas pretty quickly, and executed a recovery program. Like many other Ottoman historians, Koçi Bey’s calculations concluded that the timarli sipahi army could reach 100,000 very soon after the revival of the system, and exceed 200,000 in about a year. None of these calculations, in fact, were true. Even in a case where all the timars would be assigned to a new, qualified class of people, it was not possible to summon an army that large from only around 7,000 left.
For the most part, the efforts of reforming the timariot class were negligible, and the government did not go further than reassigning the lands to new timariots. Following Koçi Bey’s recommendation, Murad IV took away the lands from all of the present timariots except the ones that could rally men into the sipahi army. On the other hand, in terms of organizing the central government bureau, nothing was done. Moreover there were not as many attempts on preventing corruption as there were on re-establishing the timarli sipahi army. This was one of the major problems, since the military could not be rebuilt without a properly functioning timar system. In spite of this, the amounts of sipahis started increasing when the Padisah declared that each sipahi who did not personally register himself at war time would be disqualified from their lands.
There had also been efforts of decreasing the influence of the kapikulu class, and by towards the end of Murad IV period, their numbers were decreased to 60000 men where it had been 100000. This significant change in only about ten years puts forward the enthusiasm of Murad IV.
The reason that the recovery program failed is clearly the early death of Murad IV. After his death in 1640, the influence of the government quickly declined, and the same causes that corrupted the system in the first place, reappeared. The timariot class soon started including officials again and as a result there was decline in the numbers of timarli sipahis.
Conclusion
The timar system had played a major role during the rise of the Empire, and had been one of the reasons of the longevity of the Ottomans. However, the lessening authority of the government as well as the insufficient system in the government bureaus caused the timars to collapse into corruption.
Although this corruption had been blocked by Murad IV, after his death it reemerged. The reason for this is generally that Murad IV’s reforms had not been towards the causes of corruption. His efforts were a temporary solution and would always require the authority of the government.
The Ottoman Empire without a properly functioning timar system faced enormous military and economic problems. The economic decline meant that the government needed more cash, which is why the timar system was reformed into a system called the iltizam system. The iltizam system can be seen as the government taking internal loans. With the declining effect of the sipahi forces, it seemed pointless to give out land in return for military service. Instead, the government sold the right to collect tax from timars for cash.
However, this caused further troubles. The timariots who bought the timars generally became concerned with earning back their money as soon as possible and profiting, which made them take a stricter attitude towards the reaya. They increased the taxes they collected from the reaya, ands increased work hours dramatically. This is where the timar system started looking more like the feudal system. The timariots held more power over their land and the reaya, and more importantly they started to have influence in Ottoman political life.
The harshness of conditions eventually caused migration within the Empire to increase. The reaya, unsatisfied with what they were offered in exchange for working more than usual, started to move towards cities from the countryside. Although the law stated that the reaya could not leave their lands without permission, the government could not assemble a power strong enough to practice it. Civil unrest throughout the Empire became a major problem.
This chain reaction continued to wear the Empire down with time. It is possible to say that the corruption in the timar system played a major role in causing the Ottoman Empire to enter the period of decline.
Bibliography
“XVIII. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Tımar ve Zeametlerin Düzeni Konusunda Alınan Tedbirler ve Sonuçları”, Yücel Özkaya, TD, 32nd edition, Istanbul
“Tımar”, Ömer Lütfi Barkan, İslam Ansiklopedisi
“Feodal Düzen ve Osmanlı Tımarı”, Türkiye’de Toprak Meselesi (Toplu Eserler), I, Istanbul 1980
“XIV. Yüzyıldan XVI. Yüzyıla Osmanlı Devletinde Tımar”, Nicoara Beldiceanu, translated into Turkish by Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay, Ankara 1985
“XIV. – XVII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlılarda Devlet Teşkilatı ve Sosyal Yapı”, Yusuf Halaloğlu, T.T.K. Yayınları
“Türkiye’nin İktisadi ve İçtiami Tarihi”, Mustafa Akdağ, II, Ankara 1971
“Osmanlı İmparatorluğu – Toplum ve Ekonomi”, Halil İnalcık, 2nd Edition, Istanbul 1996
“Osmanlı Ansiklopedisi – Tarih / Medeniyet / Kültür” Ağaç Yayıncılık, 7th Edition, 5th Volume, pages 7 to 195.
“700. Yılında Bilinmeyen Osmanlı”, Ahmed Akgündüz & Said Öztürk, Istanbul 1999
Written by Deniz Gencturk
- ENDE DER FORSCHUNGSARBEIT
bulgarische Quelle Bearbeiten
Das Timar-System heißt auf bulgarisch: дефтери (Defteri). Unter diesem Begriff hat googel eine ganze Menge bulgarischer Quellen zum Thema. Defteri ist türkisch für Buch; allerdings nur in Zusammensetzunge (Gästebuch, Notizbuch). Sonst ist Kitap - das Buch.
- Sehr guter Tipp das mit дефтери, jetzt habe ich es auch in der bulg. Wiki gefunden. In der engl. Wiki hatten sie bis jetzt sogar eine Doppelung: Timar und Defteri. Hab ich dort erst mal angemahnt.--stefan 15:02, 21. Aug. 2007 (CEST)
- Das türkische Wort heißt defter und bedeutet nicht Buch, sondern Heft, Liste, Verzeichnis oder Register. Es ist ein Lehnwort aus dem Griechischen (δἰπτερον) --Hajo-Muc (Diskussion) 23:18, 22. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
Lehen?? Bearbeiten
Es ist verfälschend und irreführend, timar mit Lehen wiederzugeben und so das Timar-System mit dem europäischen Lehenswesen in Verbindung zu bringen. Eine treffendere Wiedergabe wäre Pfründe. Mit einem Timar konnte eine jegliche Einnahmequelle verbunden sein, in erster Linie natürlich Landbesitz. Ein Timar hatte anders als ein Lehen keinerlei gegenseitige beschworene Treuverpflichtungen zur Grundlage, sondern diente ausschließlich dazu, dem Inhaber den Lebensunterhalt zu sichern und ihm die Mittel zur Amtsführung bzw. für die militärische Ausrüstung zu gewähren. Letzte Reste eines vergleichbaren Systems sind gegenwärtig hier etwa bei den Notaren oder den Schornsteinfegern (siehe Kehrmonopol) zu finden. Im Gegensatz zum Lehen wurden auch keinerlei Hoheitsrechte zum eigenen Gebrauch übertragen. --Hajo-Muc (Diskussion) 23:48, 22. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
Defekter Weblink Bearbeiten
| Der folgende Weblink wurde von einem Bot („GiftBot“) als nicht erreichbar erkannt. |
|---|
|
- http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-130276349.html
- Vielleicht ist eine archivierte Version geeignet: archive.org
- Im Jahr 2012 bereits defekt gewesen.