The Turkish Empire, Its Growth and DecayEversley, G. Shaw-Lefevre (George Shaw-Lefevre), Baron
History
The Turkish Empire, Its Growth and Decay
Eversley, G. Shaw-Lefevre (George Shaw-Lefevre), Baron
Turkey -- History
The finance of the Empire under Solyman was most carefully husbanded.
He fully recognized the strength given to his country by a well-filled
treasury. In spite of his many wars, there were only two years in
which he found it necessary to levy exceptional taxes. In other years
the ordinary revenue sufficed. Taxation was comparatively light. His
wars in part paid for themselves by levies and exactions on the
invaded countries, and by the sale of captives. Janissaries and Spahis,
numbering together about fifty thousand, formed the standing army, and
were well paid. The holders of fiefs throughout the Empire were bound
to military service in time of war, and to bring horses and arms.
They numbered about eighty thousand, and received no pay. Neither did
the horde of irregular cavalry, Tartars, and others who accompanied
his armies, receive pay. They provided for themselves by ravaging the
countries they passed through. Under these conditions, the wars of
Solyman were not burdensome to the State.
Like so many of his predecessors, Solyman had a strong bent to literary
studies and poetry. His poems have a reputation among his countrymen
for dignity. He compiled a daily journal of his campaigns which is of
historical value. He was a liberal patron of science and art. His reign
was the Augustan age of Turkey. He was generous in his expenditure
on mosques, colleges, hospitals, aqueducts, and bridges, not only in
Constantinople, but in all the principal cities of his Empire.
It is to be noted that the sobriquet ‘Magnificent’ was given to
Solyman by contemporaries in Europe. In Turkey, he was known as ‘the
Legislator.’ His reign was conspicuous for great reforms in every
branch of the law—all aimed at justice. The land laws were overhauled.
The feudal system of fiefs, which had been partially adopted on the
model of other countries in Europe, was simplified and improved. The
position of the ‘rayas,’ was ameliorated. Something like fixity of
tenure was secured to them. The condition of the peasantry in Turkey
was distinctly better than that of the serfs in Hungary and Russia.
The Greek population of the Morea preferred Turkish rule to that of
the Venetians. A certain number of Hungarian peasants voluntarily left
their country and settled under the more humane government of Turkey
in Roumelia. A further proof of the general contentment of the people
through the great expanse of the Turkish Empire was that during the
forty-six years of Solyman’s reign there was no outbreak among any one
of the twenty different races which inhabited it—and this in spite of
the fact that the country districts were denuded of troops for the many
campaigns in Hungary and Persia. While giving Solyman full credit for
all these great achievements of his reign, it is necessary to point
out that impartial historians have detected defects in his system of
government, which grew apace under his incompetent successors, and led
inevitably to the decadence of the Ottoman Empire.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account