The timar system of the Ottoman Empire

[Denizar]

Introduction

The economy of the Ottoman Empire was mainly based on farming. It is known that the Ottomans were not involved in trading and merchandise especially in the first eras of the empire. The trade of the empire was usually handled by the minorities. 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 dependant on the land system.

Introduction to the Timar system

The longevity of the Ottoman Empire was mostly dependant on its economic and military systems. Timar was one of these systems and addressed both the economy and the military of the Empire.

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). These tax collectors 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 troops they 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 in the feudal system the peasants are literally 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 are not 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 akce 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 akce 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 akce income. For the zeamet and has sipahis this amount would be 5000 akce. 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 kapikulu soldiers (Kapikulu soldiers were usually devshirmes, Christians taken at childhood and converted to Muslim, thought in the best schools the arts of governing and war) 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 kapikulu 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.


-------------------------------------

If you read this far, this was actually a part of my Extended Essay Assignment on Why the timar system became corrupt. If you would like me to post that part too, I can in a couple of days since it is not yet finished.

By the way I would like to mention that before the invasion of Constantinople, the Ottomans aided the Byzantines against a thracian enemy at one point. The thrancian enemy (not sure which faction, but some country in the balkans) had laid a siege on Constantinople if I remember correctly, or another city in Western Thrace. The Ottomans sent 6,000 of these cavalrymen (timarli sipahis) to aid the war. Does this sound familiar? (Lord of the Rings - 6000 Rohirrim to aid Gondor + the cavalrymen are very similar in terms of weapons, numbers...)

[Denizar]

[The Wizard]

Excellent, excellent article. It would be very interesting indeed to see how this system failed.

On your question, was it perhaps Orhan Bey, who was a faithful ally of John Cantacuzenus, as well as his son-in-law, aiding the estranged guardian of John V against him and his fool mother Anne of Savoie? It could well have been Constantinople, for Cantacuzenus' demesne was in and around Thessaloniki.

[Sarmatian]

Great article. I just didn't understand one thing. You said: If a timar’s yearly income exceeded 100.000 akce the timar would be called has and it would usually be given to sultans, beys, viziers or princes.. I understood the the system was centralised and and that the sultan was owner of all land. How could it been given to beys, viziers etc... ?

I look forward to next article.

[LeftEyeNine]

Wow, great article there Denizar. It's so nice to see fellow countrymen contributing to the Org. Keep it up and let us see the rest of your article please.

[Denizar]

Thank you for your replies. :)

I can post the origins of the colapse tomorrow, but generally it is very basic.
The Ottoman central government bureau was in charge of keeping the records of these timars, and as the territory of the empire grew, this system became extremely unorganised. Unorganisation simply led to bribery and fraud, and not a lot was done to prevent this. Soon it was possible for people to get timars, and collect tax, but during war time just pass the timar onto someone else's record (usually imaginary ) ,through this unorganised system, so that they did not give anything in exchange for the land they were given. The number of sipahi's just declined so fast after the corruption, that it became 7,000 during the 1600's.

Great article. I just didn't understand one thing. You said: If a timar’s yearly income exceeded 100.000 akce the timar would be called has and it would usually be given to sultans, beys, viziers or princes.. I understood the the system was centralised and and that the sultan was owner of all land. How could it been given to beys, viziers etc... ?

Just think of beys and viziers as very high ranking officials. The more the amount of income is, the more loyal the timariot gets. Instead of renting those lands to random people, they chose viziers and beys. Am I getting somewhere or not? If not please try to explain your question a bit more .

The sultan is the owner of all land, and so he loans it to these men.

On your question, was it perhaps Orhan Bey, who was a faithful ally of John Cantacuzenus, as well as his son-in-law, aiding the estranged guardian of John V against him and his fool mother Anne of Savoie? It could well have been Constantinople, for Cantacuzenus' demesne was in and around Thessaloniki.

Yeah it was Orhan Bey :) .I am sure it was Orhan Bey who aided them, but I don't know about the rest of what you said. You are possibly correct.

[Denizar]

I said I would send it tomorrow, I was going to go over it and correct possible mistakes, but anyway here it is: (it might be a bit messy)

How the system becomes unstable

Sources

Because of the fact that no 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 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 for this essay, 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 for a number of historians. 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, Timar)

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.

Other sources used including Omer Lutfi Barkan’s articles, are second hand sources that mainly base their study around the work of Koçi Bey. Therefore it is possible to say that almost all of the information available on this topic is dependant on 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.

Following the collapse of the sipahi army, 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 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 military and economic problems. 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.

--------------------------------------------------

Now wouldn't it be great to have this system in Total War with the Ottomans? You don't get as much tax income, but free cavalrymen when you go to war !!! And in thousands !!!

[Sarmatian]

Just think of beys and viziers as very high ranking officials. The more the amount of income is, the more loyal the timariot gets. Instead of renting those lands to random people, they chose viziers and beys. Am I getting somewhere or not? If not please try to explain your question a bit more .

The sultan is the owner of all land, and so he loans it to these men.
.

Yes, I know who beys and viziers were. You made a mistake. You said: "land was given to sultans, beys, viziers etc...". If the sultan is the owner of all land, then you should have said: "Land was given by sultans to beys, viziers etc...:

So, to sum up. Sultan loaned the land to high ranking officials, who then allowen reaya to work on the land. Reaya paid taxes to those high ranking officials, who then paid taxes to the sultan. Did I get it correctly this time?

New question:
What happened if the reaya wanted to move from one timar to another and work there? Could they do so freely?

[Denizar]

No I didn't make a mistake. The has lands which had more than 100.000 akce income were indeed given to sultans, for personal use. I don't quite know how they were used, but I would surely say that the timars given to sultans were not used for farming, but for other purposes.

On your other question, the reaya could not move to another land without permission. It was their duty the stay and work the land. However, they could get permission (I don't know the details) to be able to migrate to another land.

Later when migration to cities increased, this became a huge problem. The government then of course did not allow the migration because it meant less population in the countryside and less sipahis for the army. However, it still did happen.

[Vladimir]

Great thread, good information. Keep it up!

[Sarmatian]

No I didn't make a mistake. The has lands which had more than 100.000 akce income were indeed given to sultans, for personal use. I don't quite know how they were used, but I would surely say that the timars given to sultans were not used for farming, but for other purposes.

On your other question, the reaya could not move to another land without permission. It was their duty the stay and work the land. However, they could get permission (I don't know the details) to be able to migrate to another land.

Later when migration to cities increased, this became a huge problem. The government then of course did not allow the migration because it meant less population in the countryside and less sipahis for the army. However, it still did happen.

Ok, I think I got it now. Sometimes, if the land had more than 100,000 akce income, the sultan didn't "rent" it, but used it directly. Is that it?

If reaya wasn't actually free to move to another land, how is that different from feudal system?

[Vladimir]

Ok, I think I got it now. Sometimes, if the land had more than 100,000 akce income, the sultan didn't "rent" it, but used it directly. Is that it?

If reaya wasn't actually free to move to another land, how is that different from feudal system?

Maybe in the way that Russian serfs differed from European ones?

[Denizar]

Ok, I think I got it now. Sometimes, if the land had more than 100,000 akce income, the sultan didn't "rent" it, but used it directly. Is that it?

If reaya wasn't actually free to move to another land, how is that different from feudal system?

Yes, that is it.

The reaya were at first given permission to migrate to other lands, however this when this became a major problem of the state, having terrible effects on the economy and the army, it is true that their freedoms started to become limited. Still, the timariots did not own the land, and the reaya were not their slaves. But I agree that with time the system looks much more like the feudal system. The corruption lets the timariots hold more power over the government...

[Prince Cobra]

Very, very good! I still remember how much my history techer wanted us to learn this system. We had even a test on it. Sorry, just memories.



Just one question. I think timar system was influenced not only by the Middle East Muslim tradition but also by the Byzantine pronoia system.

[Denizar]

Hmm I don't know about that system at all. It didn't come up anywhere during my research... Can you please explain it in a general way?

[Prince Cobra]

The Byzantine pronoia (pronoia in Greek means 'care') system combines the Middle East tradition with the feudal one. It is created in XIth century and during the Komnenoi period (1081-1185) and even until the decline of the Byzantine empire in XIVth century is still important for the Empire. Most often than not the pronoia is given in exchange for military service although in some cases there were no obligations of the landowner. Pronoia can be given only by the emperor and it is non-heritable land. However if a son of an owner of pronoia wants to serve in the Imperial army he has the right to keep the pronoia.
However unlike the timar system the owners of the pronoia owned the land. In the beginning the Byzantine peasants were not so tied to their land but in the process of feudalisation that happened. Although they were not exactly enslaved.
With the development in Byzantium the pronoia system also changed. In some periods Angeloi period (1185-1204) it lead to separationism because some landowners became too powerful. In the Nicaean period (1204-1261) that tendency was stopped only to begin again during the Paleologoi (1261 -1453). Since the reign of Michael VIII Palaelogus (1259 -1282) the owners of pronoia (who were also the aristocracy of the Empire) received more and more privileges by Michael VIII. Slowly but surely the landowners got the immunity from the Byzantine government ( from the Imperial bureacracy; from the Imperial courts) and the pronoia to be heritable. Finally the pronoia system changed too much and started to look like the Western feudalism. Since it was the basement of the Imperial army, this was one of the reasons for the decline of the Empire.
Hope this is enough.

P.S. I unerstood what you meant. The struggle in Thrace was between John Cantacuzenus, later to be Byzantine emperor (later John VI ), and the Bulgarian tzar Ivan Alexander who supported the anti-Cantacuzenus faction. Cantacuzenus used the Turks as his allies and mercenaries, which helped him to force Ivan-Alexander to withdraw from Thrace and eventually to become an emperor. The fortress you talk about most probably is Dimotica, the center of the Cantacuzenus supporters.

[Denizar]

Thanks a lot for that information Stephen Asen. I see how it lead to the downfall of the Byzantine Empire, as it started looking more like feudalism.