The timar system of the Ottoman Empire

**Denizar** · 10-04-2006, 13:49

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** · 10-17-2006, 21:42

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** · 11-08-2006, 05:23

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** · 11-21-2006, 23:11

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.