Ottoman Empire

(XVII – XVIIIcc)

The predecessors of the Ottomans are the empire of the Seljuk Turks.

The population is 8 million people.

1683 - Vienna catastrophe.

The Ottoman Empire arose as a result of conquests, rested on military force. It was not a state with an army, but an army with a state. There was no religious unity. Sunni Islam is the state religion. Shiites were persecuted, Christians, Jews were not loved. There was no cultural or economic unity. Even by the 20th century, a national market had not developed.

The head of state is the sultan (khan, khakan, hünkar, padishah, etc.). The sultan conferred the title of caliph after the capture of the Arabian Peninsula, Mecca and Medina.

The ideal of the Ottoman Empire is the war with the countries of the golden apple (Europe).

The country was divided into Eyalets:

Rumeli (European);

Anadolu (Asian).

Beylerbey is the head of the eyalet. He had his own court, a sofa, his own army, he was considered a local sultan. He could distribute small timars.

Eyalets were divided into sanjaks, headed by a sanjakbey.

Ayan is a local elected deputy from the feudal lords, who defended their interests.

Public administration

All subjects of the Emperor are Ottomans;

All are equal before the Sultan;

The Turks are humiliated, they are usually kept out of power;

At court, the Serbo-Croatian language is used.

The sofa consisted of:

4 controls:

Grand Vizier (the highest military and administrative authority, the second person after the Sultan, everyone hates him, wears white clothes, disappears day and night at the front);

Kadiasker - the supreme judge for military and religious affairs, "Court is the privilege of the clergy";

Bash-defterdar - chief treasurer;

Nishanji is the Sultan's secret secretary.

Foreign Secretary;

Sheikh-ul-Islam.

"All officials are slaves of the Sultan." The concept of nobility was absent, a simple person could become a grand vizier. Each official has ?elnae?- form of appeal. The clergy enjoyed special autonomy, they could stand in opposition to the Sultan.

The Ottoman Empire is the most religiously tolerant state in Europe.

3 confessions:

Greek Orthodox;

Armenian-Gregorian;

Jewish.

There was freedom of worship, freedom to perform rituals, and church institutions did not pay taxes.

The Sultan's court was divided into external (serving the Sultan) and internal (house of happiness). The yards were led by 2 super-influential eunuchs: the outer one - Kapu-Agasy, the inner one - Kyzlar-Agasy (the head of the girls).

The political system was sharply terroristic in nature. Without a powerful army, this was impossible.

Kapikulu is a professional army.

Eyalet Askeri - provincial feudal militia.

Once every 3/5 years, a devshirme was held - recruitment into the Janissary corps. They recruited from peasant boys 6 years old and slaves. The Janissary corps was divided into orts (companies) of 40 people, later up to 700 people.

1649 - the last devshirme, after that the Janissary corps began to reproduce itself thanks to the permission of marriages.

Janissaries could not wear beards, as a death penalty - only strangulation. If they did not fight, then they went to construction work. Each orta has its own symbol, which was tattooed. By the 17th century, they lost their fighting qualities, began to engage in trade. By 1726 there were 45,000 of them.

Ulufe - the salary of the Janissaries, paid 4 times a year. Esame - paybook. Janissaries got into debt. If the Janissaries owe too much, then they simply overthrew the emperor. The sultans could not fight it.

?Pishkesh?- a gift from the emperor to the Janissaries when he ascended the throne.

Agricultural system

Timar - official land grant (less than 20 thousand avche). Timars were divided into hassa-chiftlik (“special field”) and hisse (“share”). A feudal lord who owns hisse is obliged to put up soldiers, and hassa-chiftlik was given for bravery, and soldiers were not required from this land.

Zeamet - land grant more than timar (20 - 100 thousand avche)

Hass is the largest land award. (Income over 100 thousand avche gold)

Barat is a letter of commendation.

Due to high corruption, there were 10 berats for ten different people per timar, so the Turks left the land, the peasants fled to Serbia, Croatia, India. In reality, income norms were not respected. By the 19th century, Turkey was in a stagnant state.

Yurt (yurtluk) - land ownership of the leaders of nomadic tribes. Usually they were on the border and were not sown.

Waqf - church land ownership. Occurs as a result of donation. The person who donated the land retains the right to manage the waqf, plus receives part of the income. Waqf cannot be sold, but can be exchanged for an equivalent one.

Mulk is a private property. Mulk lands accounted for 3% of all lands. You can do anything with them, even though they were not absolute private property: the emperor could take away the land, because. he himself gave it.

1. Civil - servicemen;

   Spiritual.

Life was worst in the mulk and waqf lands.

Peasant position:

Multezim is a farmer. Iltizam is a paying system.

The peasants have no real money, only subsistence farming. Multezim buys the right to pay off the tax (mukataa), contributes money to the treasury, takes away food from the peasant, and sells goods on the market. The difference is net income.

The peasants are obliged to support the feudal lords, for the fact that they provide them with a chief (land from 6 to 16 hectares). For the first receipt of the chift, the peasant must pay tapu. If the peasant did not process the allotment within one year, he lost it. The term was later extended to three years. The peasant is attached to the land. The term of detecting fugitive peasants is from 15 to 20 years. The term of investigation in Istanbul is 1 year and 1 day. If a person built a house in one night, no matter on what land, then the house cannot be demolished.

Rhea is a taxable population.

Beraaya - non-taxable population.

Forms of rent:

Development (corvee);

natural;

Monetary.

Ashar - a tenth of the harvest, which is charged from Muslims (Really paid 1/3-1/2).

Kharaj was paid by non-Muslims.

Agnam - a tax on livestock (1 head from 50 - to the feudal lord, 1 akche from 3 heads - to the state).

Marriage tax - 10-20 akçe from the very poor, 30-40 akçe from middle-class peasants, 50 akçe from wealthy peasants.

Resmi-chift - land tax.

Jizya - all able-bodied non-Muslims pay for not serving in the army (except for women, children and slaves).

Spaniards are paid by all non-Muslim men and women.

Since the Empire was constantly at war, the peasants were attracted to work. Avariz - participation in hostilities. Bedel - cash payment instead of avariz.

Corvee 7 days a year:

Build / repair the house of the feudal lord;

Transportation of goods;

Give daughters to the house of the feudal lord.

Chiftlikchi - landowners.

The specifics of Turkish slavery:

Slaves were used for domestic work;

Slaves do not have land, they were just householders.

Ortakchi (share sharecropper, small rural entrepreneur) invests funds in the land together with the feudal lord, the harvest is divided in half.

Nomads are the most Turkish Turks:

Complete freedom of movement;

Their pastures are forbidden to be plowed;

They were only under the authority of their leaders;

They had the right to bear arms;

In case of war, one man out of five must be sent to the army, horseback, crowded and armed.

Used in military construction work, because. they were not very good at fighting.

By the end of the 17th century, the military fief, vassal fief, timar system had decomposed.

City life

In the 17th century, the situation of cities improved, because. The empire is expanding, military conflicts have gone to the periphery, the Ottoman Empire is waging war on foreign territories. The sultans themselves need crafts, because. need a weapon. At first, the sultans set moderate taxes, built caravanserais, tried to stop strife, tried to build roads, but all efforts were broken by the corruption of local authorities. Bazaar tax: 1 akce from 40 proceeds (for cloth, leather, honey ...). Counterfeiting has disappeared in the country. There are two main markets in Istanbul: Bezistan ("country of fabrics"), Etmaydan (meat square). Two city centers - a bazaar and a mosque, where courts were held.

Craftsmen were structured into guild organizations - Esnafs. There are no national or regional markets in the country. There is no division of labor, each master makes his own cycle. There is little use of hired labor. Tools of labor are manual and primitive. Little by little, merchants-buyers appeared, but the Esnafs fought with them. Esnaf-bashi is at the head of the shop. In especially important workshops, the esnafbashi was appointed by the state, there was basically a democracy. Esnaf-bashi has great power over the masters, because only he could buy raw materials. Esnafs set prices, norms and standards of production, market days. It was forbidden to lure buyers. Esnaf Hayeti - workshop council. Esnaf-bashi had his own coercion committee - yigit-bashi. Mandatory monopoly on production and marketing. The main problem is power. In the event of war, the state seized goods at fixed prices, which it set itself. Avani - illegal extortion of local authorities.

Reasons for the decline of the Ottoman Empire

In the XVIII century. The Eastern question is the question of the fate of the territories that previously constituted the Ottoman Empire. The Isman Empire is ready to disintegrate already in the 19th century, but it was supported by countries;

Conflict between France and Spain. 1535 - the first contacts between France and the Ottoman Empire, because France was surrounded by the Habsburgs and had no one to cooperate with;

The issue of influence in the Baltic Sea (Russia vs Sweden). Sweden is an "ally" of Turkey (the common enemy is Russia).

Reasons for the collapse of the country:

The collapse of the military fief system;

There is no legal protection of private property, therefore, the capital is exported abroad (to France);

The capitulation regime is a system of unequal trade agreements with Western countries. In 1535, Francis I achieves the first capitulation - unilateral benefits;

The Portuguese open sea ​​route around Africa;

Christopher Columbus discovers America, after which Western Europe rushed a stream of gold and silver. All this was followed by a price revolution, and the value of the acce fell;

The formation of centralized states in Europe, the completion of the unrest in Russia => 2 powerful enemies of the Ottoman Empire.

Turkish conquests in the first half of the 16th century. 16th century was

the time of the greatest military and political power of the Ottoman Empire. In the first half of the XVI century. she annexed significant territories in the Middle East and North Africa to her possessions. Having defeated the Persian Shah Ismail in the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514, and in 1516 in the Aleppo region the troops of the Egyptian Mamluks, the Ottoman Sultan Selim I (1512-1529) included southeastern Anatolia, Kurdistan, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Northern Mesopotamia to Mosul, Egypt and Hijaz with the sacred, Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. With the conquest of Egypt, the Turkish tradition connects the legend of the transfer of the title of caliph to the Turkish sultan, i.e. Deputy, vicar of the Prophet Muhammad on earth, the spiritual head of all Muslims - Sunnis. Although the very fact of such a transmission is a later fabrication, the theocratic claims of the Ottoman sultans began to manifest themselves more actively from this time, when the empire subjugated huge territories with the Muslim population. Continuing the eastern policy of Selim, Suleiman I Kanuni (Legislator, in European literature it is customary to add the epithet Magnificent to his name) (1520-1566) took possession of Iraq, the western regions of Georgia and Armenia (under a peace treaty with Iran in 1555), Aden (1538 d.) and Yemen (1546). In Africa, Algeria (1520), Tripoli (1551), Tunisia (1574) passed under the rule of the Ottoman sultans. An attempt was made to conquer the Lower Volga region, but the Astrakhan campaign of 1569 ended in failure. In Europe, having captured Belgrade in 1521, the Ottoman conquerors undertook during the years 1526-1544. five trips to Hungary. As a result, Southern and Central Hungary with the city of Buda was included in the Ottoman Empire. Transylvania was turned into a vassal principality. The Turks also captured the island of Rhodes (1522) and conquered most of the Aegean islands and a number of Dalmatian cities from the Venetians.

As a result of almost continuous aggressive wars, a huge empire was formed, the possessions of which were located in three 534

Ottoman Empire in the XVI-XVII centuries.

parts of the world - Europe, Asia and Africa. The main opponent of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East - Iran was significantly weakened. The constant object of the Iranian-Turkish rivalry was control over the traditional trade routes connecting Europe with Asia, along which the caravan trade in silk and spices went. Wars with Iran continued for about a century. They had a religious connotation, since the dominant religion in Iran was Shiite Islam, while the Ottoman sultans professed Sunnism. Throughout the 16th century, Shiism also posed a significant internal danger to the Ottoman authorities, since in Anatolia, especially eastern Anatolia, it was very widespread and became the slogan of the struggle against Ottoman rule. Wars with Iran under these conditions demanded a great effort from the Ottoman authorities.

The second rival of the Ottoman Empire in control of trade routes - Egypt ceased to exist as an independent state, its territory was included in the empire. The southern direction of trade through Egypt, Hijaz, Yemen and further to India was completely in the hands of the Ottomans.

Control over land trade routes with India, which had largely passed to the Ottoman Empire, confronted it with the Portuguese, who had established themselves in a number of points on the western coast of India and were trying to monopolize the spice trade. In 1538, a Turkish naval expedition was undertaken from Suez to India to fight the dominance of the Portuguese, but it was not successful.

The establishment of Ottoman domination over many countries and regions, differing in the level of socio-economic and political development, culture, language and religion, had a significant impact on the historical fate of the conquered peoples.

Great were the devastating consequences Ottoman conquest especially in the Balkans. Ottoman rule slowed down the economic and cultural development of this region. At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that the conquered peoples had their influence on the economy and culture of the conquerors and made a certain contribution to the development of Ottoman society.

Military administrative structure Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire was "the only truly military power of the Middle Ages". The military nature of the empire affected on the its state system and administrative structure, which received legislative formalization in the code of laws adopted during the reign of Suleiman I the Legislator (Kanuni).

The entire territory of the empire was divided into provinces (eya-let). During the reign of Suleiman, 21 eyalets were created, by the middle of the 17th century. their number increased to 26. Eyalets were divided into sanjaks (districts). Beylerbey, ruler of the eyalet, andsanjakbey, the head of the sanjak, carried out civil administration of their provinces and districts and at the same time were commanders of the feudal militia and local Janissary garrisons. Warriors of the feudal cavalry militia (sipahs) received land grants - timars and zeamets. By order of the Sultan, they were obliged to personally participate in military campaigns and, depending on the income from the land grant they received, put up a certain number of equipped horsemen. In peacetime, the sipahis were obliged to live in the sanjak, where their land was located. They were entrusted with certain functions of overseeing the state of the land fund, the regular receipt of taxes from each peasant household, the sale and inheritance of land by peasants, the obligatory cultivation of land by them, etc. By fulfilling these economic, organizational and police duties and collecting from the subject peasantry (raai) the prescribed taxes, sipahs, in fact, were not only warriors, but also performed the functions of a lower level administrative apparatus empire. Sipahis received material support from a share of the state tax from the population living in their timars or zeamets. This share was clearly defined by the state. Military commanders and administrative chiefs, beylerbeys and sanjakbeys, along with income from the land granted to them, were entitled to receive a certain kind taxes and from peasants living in the possessions of ordinary sipahs. As a result of these complex tax combinations, the rank-and-file sipahis were subordinated to large feudal lords who stood at the highest military-administrative level. This created a peculiar system of feudal hierarchy in the Ottoman Empire.

Even large feudal lords in the Ottoman Empire did not have judicial immunity. Judicial functions were isolated and performed by qadis (Muslim judges), who were not subordinate to the local administration, but only to qadiaskers in eyalets and the head of the Muslim community in the empire, Sheikh-ul-Islam. Judicial proceedings were centralized, and the sultan could (through qadis) directly exercise his supervision in the field. The Sultan was an unlimited ruler and exercised administrative power through the Grand Vizier, who was in charge of the military-administrative-fiscal department, and the Sheikh-ul-Islam, who was in charge of religious and judicial affairs. This duality of government contributed to the centralization of the state.

However, not all eyalets of the empire had the same status. Almost all Arab regions (except for some Asian regions bordering Anatolia) retained traditional pre-Ottoman agrarian relations and administrative structure. The Janissary garrisons were only stationed there. DutyThese eyalets in relation to the central government consisted in the supply of an annual tribute to the capital - salyan - and the provision of certain contingents of troops at the request of the Sultan. Even more independent were the hukumets (possessions) of a number of Kurdish and some Arab tribes, which enjoyed administrative autonomy and only in wartime provided detachments of their troops at the disposal of the Sultan. The empire also included Christian principalities that paid annual tribute, a kind of buffer border territories, in the internal affairs of which the High Port (the government of the Ottoman Empire) did not interfere. Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania, as well as Dubrovnik and some regions of Georgia and the North Caucasus had such a status. The Crimean Khanate, the Sherifate of Mecca, Tripoli, Tunisia, Algeria, who also retained special privileges of border provinces, were in a special position.

New phenomena in the agrarian relations of the Ottoman Empire in the XVI-XVII centuries. The crisis of the military system. In the legislative acts of Suleiman I, new phenomena were recorded in the agrarian relations of the Ottoman Empire. First of all, this is the legal registration of attaching peasants to the land. Even at the end of the XV century. in some areas of the country there was a practice of returning fugitive peasants. According to the Suleiman code, feudal lords throughout the country received such a right. A 15-year period for searching for peasants in rural areas and a 20-year period for searching for peasants in cities was established. This provision did not affect only the capital - Istanbul, where the fugitives were not wanted.

The balance of power within the ruling class also changed. The strict regulation by the state of the income of the sipahi hindered the growth of their economic power. The struggle for land between the various strata of the feudal class intensified. Sources testify that some large feudal lords concentrated in their hands 20-30, and even 40-50 zea-mets and timars. In this regard, the palace aristocracy and bureaucracy were especially active.

Officials of the central apparatus of the Ottoman administration received special land holdings- hassy. These dominions were extremely large in size; so, for example, the beylerbey of Anatolia received an annual income from his hass 1,600,000 akche, the Janissary agha - 500,000 akche (whereas an ordinary timariot received 3,000 or even less). But unlike the possessions of the sipahis, the hass were purely official awards and were not inherited. They were associated with a specific position.

A characteristic feature of the Ottoman social structure was that the bureaucratic aristocracy could penetrate the milieu of military captives, but there was no way back. The Ottoman bureaucracy was replenished either by heredity or throughthe so-called kapikulu - "slaves of the Sultan's court." The latter came either from former prisoners of war who were captured at an early age, or were taken according to their devshirma. Dev-shirme - a blood tax, a forced recruitment of boys, carried out in a number of Christian regions of the empire. Christian boys of 7-12 years old were torn from their native environment, converted to Islam and sent to be raised in Muslim families. Then they were trained in special school at the Sultan's court and formed from them detachments of troops who received a salary from the sultans. The greatest fame and glory in the Ottoman Empire was acquired by the foot army of this category - the Janissaries. From the same environment formed the Ottoman officials of various ranks, up to the Grand Vizier. As a rule, these persons were promoted to the highest positions by well-known feudal families, sometimes by the sultans themselves or their relatives, and were obedient conductors of their will.

Representatives of the bureaucratic category of the ruling class, in addition to the service hass assigned to them, received from the Sultan land holdings on the rights of unconditional ownership - mulk. The award of mulks to dignitaries was especially widespread in the second half of the 16th century.

Frequent changes of senior officials, executions and confiscations of property practiced by the Sultan's power forced the feudal lords to find means to preserve their property. It was practiced to donate land to waqf, i.e. in favor of Muslim religious institutions. The founders of waqfs and their heirs were guaranteed certain deductions from donated property. The transfer to the waqf meant the withdrawal of landed property from the jurisdiction of the sultan and guaranteed the former owners the preservation of solid income. Waqf land ownership reached 1/3 of all the lands of the empire.

The reduction in the land fund available to the state also entailed a reduction in tax revenues to the treasury. In addition, by the end of the XVI century. in the Ottoman Empire, the consequences of the “price revolution” that swept across Europe in connection with the influx of American silver began to affect. The rate of the main monetary unit of the empire - akche - fell. A financial crisis was brewing in the country. The lenniks - sipahis - were ruined. And since the sipahis were not only cavalry soldiers, but also the lowest link in the administrative apparatus, their ruin disrupted the functioning of the entire state system.

With the ruin of the Sipahian stratum of the feudal class and the reduction in the number of Sipahian cavalry, the role of the army, which was on a salary, in particular the Janissary corps, increased. The Sultan's authorities, experiencing an acute need for money, increasingly seized timars and zeamets from sipahis andresorted to increasing taxation, the introduction of various emergency taxes and fees, as well as the surrender of tax collection on farming. Through the system of farming out, commercial and usurious elements began to join in the exploitation of the peasantry.

At the end of the XVI century. the country was going through a crisis of the military system. There was a disorganization of all links of the Ottoman state system, the arbitrariness of the ruling class intensified. This caused powerful protests of the masses.

Popular movements in the Ottoman Empire in the 16th - early 17th centuries. Major uprisings in the Ottoman Empire took place already at the beginning of the 16th century. They reached a special scope in eastern Anatolia and took place mostly under Shiite slogans. However, the religious shell could not obscure social essence these uprisings. The largest were the uprisings under the leadership of Shah-Kulu in 1511-1512, Nur-Ali in 1518, Jelal in 1519. Named after the leader last uprising all subsequent popular movements in Anatolia in the 16th - early 17th centuries. began to be called "dzhelali". Both the Turkish peasantry and nomadic pastoralists, as well as non-Turkish tribes and peoples, took part in these movements. Along with anti-feudal demands in the movement of the early XVI century. there were demands reflecting dissatisfaction with the establishment of Ottoman domination in this region, rivalry with the Ottomans of other Turkish tribes and dynasties, and the desire for independence of various Turkic and non-Turkic peoples. The Shah of Persia and his agents, who were active in eastern Anatolia, played an important role in inciting the uprisings. The Ottoman sultans managed to cope with this movement with cruel repressive measures.

At the end of the XVI - beginning of the XVII century. a new stage of movement begins. During this period, religious Shiite slogans are almost never found. Social motives are brought to the fore, due to the crisis of the military system, the strengthening of tax oppression and the financial difficulties of the empire. In the uprisings, the main driving force of which was the peasantry, the ruined Timariots took an active part, hoping to restore their former rights to land on the crest of the popular movement. Most major movements of this period were the uprisings of Kara Yazici and Deli Hassan (1599-1601) and Kalander-oglu (1592-1608).

The peoples continued to fight against Ottoman rule Balkan countries. In the XVI century. the most common form of resistance here was the Haiduk movement. In the 90s. 16th century uprisings broke out in various parts of the Balkan Peninsula. These are the performance of the Serbs in the Banat, the Wallachian uprising of 1594 led by the ruler Michael the Brave, the uprisings in Tarnovo and a number of other cities.

The fight against the anti-feudal and people's liberation movementzhenie demanded from the Ottoman authorities a significant effort. In addition, separatist rebellions of large feudal lords took place at this time. The janissary corps, which twice, in 1622 and 1623, participated in the overthrow of the sultans, became an unreliable support of power. In the middle of the XVII century. The Ottoman government managed to stop the collapse of the empire that had begun. However, the crisis of the military system continued.

The international position of the Ottoman Empire in the second half of the 16th - the first half of the 17th centuries. The Ottoman Empire was still a strong power with an active foreign policy. The Turkish government widely used not only military, but also diplomatic methods of dealing with its opponents, the main of which in Europe was the Habsburg Empire. In this struggle, a military anti-Habsburg alliance of the Ottoman Empire with France was formed, formalized by a special treaty, which received the name “surrender” in the literature (chapters, articles). Negotiations with France on the conclusion of capitulation have been going on since 1535. The capitulation relations were formalized in 1569. Their fundamental importance was that the Sultan's government created favorable conditions for French merchants to trade in the Ottoman Empire, granted them the right of extraterritoriality, and established low customs duties. These concessions were unilateral. They were considered by the Ottoman authorities as not so important in comparison with the establishment of military cooperation with France in the anti-Habsburg war. However, in the future, capitulations played a negative role in the fate of the Ottoman Empire, creating favorable conditions for establishing the economic dependence of the empire on Western European countries. So far, this treaty and the similar treaties that followed it with England and Holland did not yet contain elements of inequality. They were given as a favor of the Sultan and were valid only during his reign. With each subsequent sultan, the European ambassadors had to again seek consent to confirm the capitulations.

The first diplomatic contacts with Russia were established by the Ottoman Empire (at the initiative of the Turks) at the end of the 15th century. In 1569, after the annexation of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates to Russia, the first military conflict between Russia and the Turks took place, who wanted to prevent Astrakhan from annexing to Russia. In the subsequent period of more than 70 years, there were no major military clashes between Russia and the Ottoman Empire.

There have been wars with Iran mixed success. In 1639, the borders were established, which did not change significantly for a long time. Baghdad, Western Georgia, Western Armenia and part of Kurdistan remained in the Ottoman Empire.

Long and stubborn wars were waged by the Ottoman Empire with Venice. As a result, the islands of Cyprus (1573) and Crete (1669) were annexed to the Ottoman possessions. It was in the war with Venice and the Habsburgs in 1571 that the Turks suffered their first serious defeat in the naval battle of Lepanto. Although this defeat did not have serious consequences for the empire, it was the first external manifestation of the beginning of its decline. military power.

War with Austria (1593-1606), Austro-Turkish treaties of 1615 and 1616 and the war with Poland (1620-1621) led to some territorial concessions Ottoman Empire Austria and Poland.

The continuation of endless wars with neighbors worsened the already difficult internal situation of the country. In the second half of the XVII century. The foreign policy positions of the Ottoman Empire were significantly weakened.

(since the decline of Byzantium), was formed in Anatolia by the tribes of the Turks. The state existed until 1922 - the moment of formation Turkish Republic. Named after the first sultan - the founder

At the beginning of his reign, the Sultan expanded his inheritance by annexing territories from the Marmara and Black Seas, a significant part of the land to the west of the Sakarya River.

After the death of Osman, Orkhan ascended the throne. During the years of his reign, the capital of the state was approved - Bursa (a former Byzantine city).

After Orhan, his eldest son Murad 1 became the ruler. This great statesman managed to strengthen the presence of the troops of his state in Europe. Murad 1 in 1389 defeated the Serbian prince on As a result of this battle, the Ottoman Empire acquired most of the southern territory of the Danube.

The system of government in the country was based on a combination of Byzantine, Seljuk and Arab traditions and customs. On the lands that the Ottomans conquered, they tried to preserve local traditions as much as possible, not to destroy historically established relations.

The territory of the Ottoman Empire expanded even more during the reign of Murad 1's son, Bayezid 1. The most significant victory was the Battle of Nikopol in 1396 (on the Danube). However, despite external prosperity, the Ottoman Empire experienced quite serious difficulties, both external and internal. Mainly, the mannered behavior of the ruler, his huge harem, exquisite ceremonies in the palace irritated many ghazis. In addition, Bayezid's campaigns against Muslims and other ghazis in Asia Minor also caused concern. As a result, most of the local beys went over to Tamerlane and persuaded him to start a war against the Ottoman ruler.

As a result of the battle in 1402, Bayezid's army was defeated, and the ruler himself was captured. The Ottoman Empire was fragmented as a result of the subsequent campaigns of Tamerlane. However, the sultans retained power over some territories of the country.

During the 15th century, the Ottoman state pursued a policy of internal reorganization and external expansion and strengthening of borders.

The "gold" for the empire was the 16th century. During this period, Suleiman 1 ruled the country, giving great importance strengthening sea ​​power states. The middle of the 16th century was the heyday of architecture and literature.

In the Ottoman Empire at that time, feudal relations dominated, and the military organization and administrative system were structured by law.

It should be noted that after this time (after the reign of Suleiman 1), most of the sultans were enough weak rulers. At the beginning of the 17th century, a power reform was carried out in the state. Previously, there was a rather cruel tradition in the empire - the sultan who ascended the throne killed all his brothers. Since 1603, the brothers of the rulers and their relatives were imprisoned in a special, remote part of the palace, where they spent their whole lives, until the death of the ruler. When the Sultan died, the eldest of the prisoners took his place. As a result, almost all the sultans who reigned in the 17-18 centuries were not intellectually developed and, of course, had no political experience. Due to the fact that there was no worthy ruler, the huge country began to lose its unity, and the power itself began to weaken very quickly.

As a result, the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century lost most of its power in the Mediterranean. The end of the Seven Years' War provoked new attacks on the state. Thus, the empire acquired, in addition to the old enemy of Austria, a new enemy - Russia.

1. The social structure of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th-18th centuries.

2. Stages of reforms in the empire. Tanzimat

3. "Eastern question" in the policy of the European powers

4. Young Turk Revolution

The Turkish people are one of the youngest in the history of mankind. As something independent and separate from other tribes, it took shape around the 13th century. The common ancestors of the Turks and Turkmens were burdens. These are the tribes living to the east of the Caspian Sea. In the 11th century part of the burdens went on a march to the west, who remained - the current Turkmens. At the end of the 11th century this part settled on the peninsula of Asia Minor. She reminded them of their homeland, only she had a more favorable climate: plenty of pastures for their nomadic lifestyle. The first Turkish statehood arose there. To do this, they had to push the Greeks and Armenians, partly the Arabs. This statehood turned out to be very shaky and in the 13th century. it was defeated by the Mongols during their invasion. This former statehood is called the statehood of the Seljuk Turks. The Seljuks are the name of their ruling dynasty, which the Mongols ended.
Until the 14th century The Turks did not have statehood. The Ottoman dynasty begins to rise, which ruled until the 20th century. The state they created was called the Ottoman Turks.

Features of Turkish statehood. It is "the only true military power Middle Ages". The whole system of life was permeated with militarism. "Our state was created by a saber, it can only be supported by a saber."

The Turks created the only military contingent in the world, which no one else had thought of until that time - the Janissaries. They took boys of 7 years old from 7 conquered peoples, converted them to Islam, made them the guards of the Sultan: ferocious and cruel warriors who were forbidden to marry, were engaged only in military affairs. But they could swear not only over the conquered peoples, but also over the Turks, who did not respect the Sultan. There were cases when even their own fathers were killed.

The Turks were Muslims and always remained so. The rise of the Ottoman dynasty was associated with a special zeal in matters of faith. The Turks attracted ghazis - fighters for the faith.
The rise of the power of the Ottoman dynasty was associated not only with religious trends. These ghazis hoped to cash in on the campaigns that the Ottomans made against the Christians. In 1389 The Ottomans defeated the Serbs in Kosovo. This is the day of national mourning for the Serbs. 9 years before that, Russia defeated the horde on the Kulikovo field.
1453 when the Turks took Constantinople. The Turks blocked all routes to the east. They created a huge empire. The Ottoman Empire inspired fear and horror throughout Europe. In the 16th century they were already not far from Vienna, i.e. possessions extended to Central Europe.

Social structure of the Ottoman Empire. The social structure rested not only on the fear of the Turkish saber. They had the same classes as other states. It -

People of the sword, i.e. military;

People of the pen are officials;

Farmers;

The people of the bazaar are merchants and artisans;

Non-Muslims stood apart - they were called "herd".

All Muslim countries had these estates. But among the Turks, the military class was especially strong. Janissaries were only a part of this estate and not the largest. The main part was made up of sipahis (horsemen). They had their own land, they had several horses, servants. In fact, it was a small detachment, 10-15 people walked with one sipah. It was the sipahis who received for participation in campaigns not only part of the booty, but also the right to collect taxes from land grants. In Europe, medieval flax was given as the whole territory, with a castle, roads. And among the Turks - flax was not their possession, they collected taxes only from them. After the Sipah and the Janissaries, all the rest were much lower. So it was in the 16th and, in part, in the 17th centuries.

The situation began to change, and for the worse.

In the 18th century The Ottoman Empire is in crisis, and in the 19th century. the question arises about its further existence - the "Eastern Question", who will get the Ottoman inheritance. In European language, not Ottomans, but Ottomans.

Where did the crisis come from? With all the power of the Ottoman state, it initially had defects and vices that corroded it.

Sultan. His Turks called padishah. Each of them tried to secure unlimited power for himself, using even the most extreme measures. The style of government was harsh and rude.

The second social vice, even more terrible, is corruption. It didn't spread instantly. She has been in many societies. It was practically legalized. They introduced bookkeeping and took taxes from it. This system corroded even the Janissary corps. They were no longer interested in military service, long trips. They wanted to extort gifts from the sultans and from everyone else. Many people appeared among them who had nothing to do with military service at all, they simply bought themselves a Janissary diploma. When the sultan did not suit the Janissaries, anything could happen to him. Sultan Selin 3 at the beginning of the 19th century. was first overthrown, then killed by the Janissaries.

The third vice is inter-religious and inter-ethnic strife. Muslim Turks oppressed Christians and other non-Muslims. (The position of the Jews was normal, because they had trading houses that the Turks needed). Christians from their subjects were Slavs (Bulgarians, Serbs, Armenians) and Greeks. For these oppressions, the Christians fiercely hated the Turks. There were constant uprisings and unrest. Many Greeks lived in Italy, in Russia. Turks were hated and Muslims who were not Turks often fought with them. The Turks have always won in court. Arabs and Kurds, who were Muslims, often fought with the Turks. This strife and mutual hatred constantly weakened the empire. In the 19th century some began to free themselves from the Turkish yoke, no longer obeyed the Sultan (the Greek uprising of 1821, the Greeks became independent). Egypt seceded. The Ottoman Empire was in decline, it seemed that nothing could save it.

2. In the 18th century. It became clear to the ruling elite of Turkey that change was needed as the state weakened, corruption grew, and the Turks even began to suffer military defeats from their neighbors.

Sultan Selim 3 at the end of the 18th century. initiated these reforms. They were not very wide and aimed at strengthening the army. New military manufactories were built. The fleet was fortified. Those who did not carry out military service were deprived of the right to receive timars (land plots from which they collected tax), but the reforms caused a lot of discontent in the Turkish army, especially among the Janissaries. They overthrew the Sultan, then killed him. The Sultan was also a caliph, i.e. had the title of a Muslim community.

The Sultan's successors understood that it was necessary to put the Janissaries in their place, otherwise nothing could be done.

Sultan Mahmud 2 prepared very thoroughly for the fight against the Janissaries, in 1826. he managed to deal with them. By this time, the Sultan had brought up specially prepared units in the capital and secretly placed them in the vicinity. And then his close associates provoked a riot of the Janissaries. Angry Janissaries rushed to the center of Istanbul to the Sultan's palace, but there were pre-disguised cannons that advanced against the rebels and began to shoot them. The rebellion resembles outwardly the Decembrist uprising. Those who did not have time to be shot were immediately killed, hanged, dealt with mercilessly, the Janissary corps was almost completely destroyed. Thus began the reforms of Sultan Mahmud 2.

Only 13 years later, in 1839. reforms were continued. They lasted until the early 70s. These reforms were called Tanzimat ("transformations"). These reforms still do not have an unambiguous assessment. Previously, it was believed that they were unsuccessful and not wealthy. Recently, these reforms have been rated higher, especially by Orientalists.

The Sultan declared that he guaranteed the property of all the subjects of the empire, not only the Turks, not only the Muslims. It was a declaration. This was not always done. But this was already a responsible statement, it was a step towards recognizing the rights of the oppressed peoples of the Ottoman Empire. A fair conscription for military service was established, limited to 5 years. Those who performed poorly in their service were removed from their posts. Secular education developed. Technical disciplines were studied, even a university appeared. Some restrictions on trade and entrepreneurial activity were lifted: the guild regulation of artisans was abolished. Invitation of foreign experts: military advisers, engineers and doctors. The results of this policy are evaluated in different ways. crisis phenomena managed to weaken. The position of non-Muslims improved, but not all, but only the most prosperous - the commercial Greek bourgeoisie. But the reforms could not fundamentally change the whole situation. Reforms are a building that is erected on a completely shaky foundation.

3. By the beginning of the 19th century. The military and political power of the Ottoman Empire was greatly weakened. In its development, it noticeably lagged behind its European neighbors, and this had an effect. The Russian emperor Nicholas 1 compared the Ottoman Empire with a sick person. If the empire collapsed, the question arose of who would get the Ottoman inheritance. This was the essence of the Eastern question. The great powers were not interested in the rapid collapse of the empire, because this could create difficulties with the liberated peoples, who could start riots. Therefore, they delayed the process of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a weak empire was quite convenient than 10 independent states. There were differences between Russia and all other states in their approach to the Eastern Question. As one of the Austrian emperors noted: "I would like to see better Janissary turbans in Constantinople than Cossack hats." In other words, the Western powers were afraid of excessive strengthening of Russia in this matter. They wanted to use the Ottoman Empire as a counterbalance to Russian power. All this was clearly manifested during the Crimean War. It began as a war between the Russian and Ottoman empires. Then Great Britain and France got involved. These countries used the support to their advantage. More and more they were introduced into the Turkish economy, participated in internal affairs Ottomans. France has been using since the 18th century. capitulation regime. These are unilateral concessions that the sultans provided to Western participants in the Turkish market. Western empires created in 1881. Office of the Ottoman public debt. This department was created under the pretext of the insolvency of the Sultan's government, because. it was bad at repaying debts. The administration began to operate on Turkish territory itself, using internal Turkish taxes.

4. In 1876 Abdul-Hamid 2 became the sultan in the empire. His reign lasted more than 30 years.

At the beginning of his reign, he granted his subjects the first constitution in history. He made such a move to impress his allies that Turkey is also among the legal European states. But the real policy of the Sultan was increasingly in conflict with the declarations of the constitution. The subjects themselves called this policy "zulyum" ("oppression"). It was a regime of surveillance, whistleblowing and intimidation. The Sultan even established a kind of scammers who sent their reports to the name of the Sultan. These reports were called "journals". In Turkish society, there was an increasing Turkization and Islamization. At this time, the Turks moved from the outskirts of the empire to its center, to the peninsula Asia Minor, because Turkey was losing its positions on the outskirts. For the second half of the 19th century. up to 5 million people moved. Greeks, Armenians, partly Slavs, on the contrary, left the central regions of the empire, there were about a million of them. They went to Russia, Europe and North America.

A new phenomenon is pan-Turkism. This is the idea of ​​uniting all Turkic peoples under the rule of the Turkish Sultan. In 1910 they started publishing their own magazine. The ideologist of the current was Zia Gok Alg. They advocated the unity of those peoples who lived on the territory of the Russian Empire: Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, etc. This trend could not be approved Islamic tradition, because she placed ethnic solidarity over religious solidarity.

Under the conditions of the reign of Sultan Hamid, opposing currents appeared - the Young Turks. They were a liberal and pro-Western organization. Talk about order and progress. Under conditions of political oppression, the Young Turks were forced to exist illegally. Therefore, for their activities, the Young Turks used Masonic lodges. Through their brothers in the west, they received material assistance. They were associated with Italian lodges. By joining these lodges, from the point of view of Islam, they committed a terrible sin. The Young Turks were also helped by the fact that Abdul-Hamid made many enemies for himself, even outside of Turkey itself. The European powers feared the strengthening of Turkey, that the Sultan would become completely independent. Hamid in the early 20th century close to Germany. Hamid also quarreled with the Jews.

By the end of the 19th century - Zionist movement for the return of Jews to Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state there. Their leader Theodor Herzl twice asked the Sultan to allow the return of the Jews to Palestine. The Sultan actually introduced "red passports" for the Jews, which made it difficult for them to move around the country.

1. The decline of the Turkish military-feudal state

By the middle of the XVII century. the decline of the Ottoman Empire, which began already in the previous century, was clearly indicated. Turkey still owned vast territories in Asia, Europe and Africa, had important trade routes and strategic positions, had many peoples and tribes in its subordination. The Turkish sultan - the Great Senior, or the Great Turk, as he was called in European documents - was still considered one of the most powerful sovereigns. The military power of the Turks also seemed formidable. But in reality, the roots of the former power of the Sultan's empire were already undermined.

The Ottoman Empire did not have internal unity. Its individual parts differed sharply from each other in ethnic composition, language and religion of the population, in terms of social, economic and cultural development, in terms of the degree of dependence on the central government. The Turks themselves were a minority in the empire. Only in Asia Minor and in the part of Rumelia (European Turkey) adjacent to Istanbul did they live in large compact masses. In the rest of the provinces, they were scattered among the indigenous population, which they never managed to assimilate.

Turkish domination over the oppressed peoples of the empire was thus based almost exclusively on military violence alone. Domination of this kind could last for a more or less long period only if there were sufficient funds to carry out this violence. Meanwhile, the military power of the Ottoman Empire was steadily declining. The military system of land ownership, inherited by the Ottomans from the Seljuks and at one time one of the most important reasons for the success of Turkish weapons, has lost its former significance. Formally, legally, it continued to exist. But its actual content has changed so much that from a factor in the strengthening and enrichment of the Turkish feudal lords of the class, it has become a source of its ever-increasing weakness.

Decomposition of the military fief system of land tenure

The military-feudal nature of the Ottoman Empire determined its entire domestic and foreign policy. Prominent Turkish politician and writer of the 17th century. Kochibey Gemyurdzhinsky noted in his "risal" (tract) that the Ottoman state "was obtained with a saber and can only be supported with a saber." For several centuries, obtaining spoils of war, slaves and tribute from the conquered lands was the main means of enriching the Turkish feudal lords, and direct military violence over the conquered peoples and the Turkish working masses - main function state power. Therefore, since the inception Ottoman state the Turkish ruling class directed all its energy and attention to the creation and maintenance of a combat-ready army. The decisive role in this regard was played by the military-feudal system of land tenure, which provided for the formation and supply of the feudal army by the military fiefs themselves - sipahs, who for this received large and small estates (zeamets and timars) from the state land fund on conditional ownership rights with the right to collect a certain part rent-tax in their favor. Although this system did not extend to all the territories captured by the Turks, its significance was decisive for the Turkish military-feudal state as a whole.

At first, the military system acted clearly. It directly followed from the interest of the Turkish feudal lords in the active aggressive policy and, in turn, stimulated this interest. Numerous military captives - loans (owners of zeamets) and timariots (owners of timars) - were not only military, but also the main political force of the Ottoman Empire, they constituted, in the words of a Turkish source, "a real army for faith and the state." The military system freed the state budget from the main part of the cost of maintaining the army and ensured the rapid mobilization of the feudal army. The Turkish infantry - the Janissaries, as well as some other corps of government troops were on a monetary salary, but the military land tenure system indirectly influenced them, opening up a tempting prospect for commanders and even ordinary soldiers to receive military fiefs and thereby become sipahs.

At first, the military system did not have a detrimental effect on the peasant economy. Of course, peasant raya ( Raya (raya, raya) - common name taxable population in the Ottoman Empire, "subjects"; later (not before) late XVI II century) only non-Muslims were called raya.), deprived of any political rights, was in feudal dependence on the sipah and was subjected to feudal exploitation. But this exploitation at first had a predominantly fiscal and more or less patriarchal character. As long as the sipahi was enriched mainly by war booty, he considered land ownership not as the main, but as an auxiliary source of income. He was usually limited to the collection of rent-tax and the role of political overlord and did not interfere in the economic activities of the peasants, who used their land plots on the basis of hereditary holdings. With natural forms of economy, such a system provided the peasants with the opportunity for a tolerable existence.

However, in its original form, the military system did not operate in Turkey for long. The internal contradictions inherent in it began to appear soon after the first great Turkish conquests. Born in war and for war, this system required the continuous or almost continuous waging of aggressive wars, which served as the main source of enrichment for the ruling class. But this source was not inexhaustible. The Turkish conquests were accompanied by enormous destruction, and the material values ​​extracted from the conquered countries were quickly and unproductively squandered. On the other hand, the conquests, by expanding feudal landownership and creating for the feudal lords a certain guarantee of the unhindered exploitation of the received estates, raised the importance of landed property in their eyes, increased its attractive force.

The greed of the feudal lords for money increased with the development commodity-money relations in the country and especially foreign trade relations, which made it possible to satisfy the ever-growing demand of the Turkish nobility for luxury goods.

All this caused the Turkish feudal lords to desire to increase the size of the estates and the income received from them. At the end of the XVI century. the ban on the concentration of several fiefs in one hand, established by previous laws, ceased to be observed. In the 17th century, especially from its second half, the process of concentration of landed property intensified. Vast estates began to be created, the owners of which sharply increased feudal duties, introduced arbitrary requisitions, and in some cases, though still rare at that time, created a master's plow in their own estates, the so-called chiftliks ( Chiftlik (from the Turkish "chift" - a pair, means a pair of oxen, with the help of which a land plot is cultivated) in the period under review - a private feudal estate formed on state land. The Chiftlik system became most widespread later, at the end of the 18th - early XIX c., when landlords - chiftlikchi began to seize peasant lands en masse; in Serbia, where this process took place in especially violent forms, it received the Slavicized name of reverence.).

The very mode of production did not change because of this, but the attitude of the feudal lord to the peasants, to land ownership, and to his duties to the state did change. The old exploiter, the sipahis, who had war in the forefront and who was most interested in military booty, was replaced by a new, much more money-hungry feudal landowner, whose main goal was to maximize income from the exploitation of peasant labor. New landowners, unlike the old ones, were actually, and sometimes formally, exempted from military obligations to the state. Thus, at the expense of the state-feudal land fund, large-scale private-feudal property grew. The sultans also contributed to this, distributing vast estates to dignitaries, pashas of the provinces, court favorites in unconditional possession. The former war captives sometimes also managed to turn into landlords of a new type, but most often the timariots and loans went bankrupt, and their lands passed to new feudal owners. Directly or indirectly attached to landed property and usurious capital. But, contributing to the decomposition of the military system, he did not create a new, more progressive way production. As K. Marx noted, “with Asian forms, usury can exist for a very long time, without causing anything other than economic decline and political corruption”; "... it is conservative and only brings the existing mode of production to a more miserable state" ( K. Marx, Capital, vol. III, pp. 611, 623.).

The disintegration and then the crisis of the military-feudal system of land tenure led to the crisis of the Turkish military-feudal state as a whole. It was not a crisis of the mode of production. Turkish feudalism was then still far from the stage at which the capitalist structure arises, entering into a struggle with the old forms of production and the old political superstructure. The elements of capitalist relations that were observed in the period under review in the economy of cities, especially in Istanbul and in general in the European provinces of the empire - the appearance of certain manufactories, the partial use of wage labor in state enterprises, etc. - were very weak and fragile. AT agriculture there were not even faint sprouts of new forms of production. The disintegration of the Turkish military-feudal system resulted not so much from changes in the mode of production, but from those contradictions that were rooted in it and developed without going beyond the framework of feudal relations. But thanks to this process, there were significant changes in the agrarian system of Turkey and shifts within the class of feudal lords. Ultimately, it was the disintegration of the military-fief system that caused the decline of Turkish military power, which, due to the specifically military nature of the Ottoman state, was of decisive importance for its entire further development.

Decreased military power of the Turks. The defeat at Vienna and its consequences

By the middle of the XVII century. the crisis of the military fief system of land tenure has gone far. Its consequences were manifested both in the strengthening of feudal oppression (as evidenced by numerous cases of peasant uprisings, as well as the mass exodus of peasants to cities and even outside the empire), and in reducing the size of the Sipahian army (under Suleiman the Magnificent, it numbered 200 thousand people, and to the end of the 17th century - only 20 thousand), and in the decomposition of both this army and the Janissaries, and in the further collapse of the government apparatus, and in the growth of financial difficulties.

Some Turkish statesmen tried to delay this process. The most prominent among them were the great viziers from the Köprülü family, who carried out in the second half of the 17th century. a number of measures aimed at streamlining administration, strengthening discipline in the state apparatus and the army, and regulating the tax system. However, all these measures led to only partial and short-term improvements.

Turkey also weakened relatively - in comparison with its main military opponents, the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. In most of these countries, although feudalism still dominated in them, new productive forces gradually grew, and a capitalist system developed. In Turkey, there were no prerequisites for this. Already after the great geographical discoveries, when the process of primitive accumulation took place in the advanced European countries, Turkey found itself aloof from the economic development of Europe. Further, nations and nation-states were formed in Europe, either single-national or multi-national, but in this case also headed by some strong emerging nation. Meanwhile, the Turks not only could not rally all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire into a single "Ottoman" nation, but they themselves were increasingly lagging behind in socio-economic, and therefore, in national development, from many peoples subject to them, especially the Balkans.

Unfavorable for Turkey in the middle of the XVII century. the international situation in Europe. The Peace of Westphalia raised the importance of France and reduced her interest in getting help from the Turkish sultan against the Habsburgs. In its anti-Habsburg policy, France began to orient itself more towards Poland, as well as towards the smaller German states. On the other hand, after the Thirty Years' War, which undermined the position of the emperor in Germany, the Habsburgs concentrated all their efforts on the fight against the Turks, trying to take away Eastern Hungary from them. Finally, an important shift in the balance of power in Eastern Europe came as a result of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. Turkish aggression has now met with much more powerful resistance in the Ukraine. The Polish-Turkish contradictions also deepened.

The military weakening of Turkey and its growing lag behind the European states soon affected the course of hostilities in Europe. In 1664, a large Turkish army suffered a heavy defeat at St. Gotthard (Western Hungary) from the Austrians and Hungarians, who this time were joined by a detachment of the French. True, this defeat has not yet stopped the Turkish aggression. In the early 70s, the troops of the Turkish sultan and his vassal, the Crimean Khan, invaded Poland and Ukraine several times, reaching the Dnieper itself, and in 1683 Turkey, taking advantage of the struggle of part of the Hungarian feudal lords led by Emerik Tekeli against the Habsburgs, undertook a new attempt to defeat Austria. However, it was this attempt that led to the disaster near Vienna.

At first, the campaign developed successfully for the Turks. A huge, more than a hundred thousandth army, led by the great vizier Kara Mustafa, defeated the Austrians in Hungary, then invaded Austria and on July 14, 1683 approached Vienna. The siege of the Austrian capital lasted two months. The position of the Austrians was very difficult. Emperor Leopold, his court and ministers fled from Vienna. Behind them, the rich and the nobles began to flee, until the Turks closed the siege ring. Remained to defend the capital mainly artisans, students and peasants who came from the suburbs burned by the Turks. The troops of the garrison totaled only 10 thousand people and had an insignificant amount of guns and ammunition. The defenders of the city were weakening every day, and famine soon began. Turkish artillery destroyed a significant part of the fortifications.

The turning point came on the night of September 12, 1683, when the Polish king Jan Sobieski approached Vienna with a small (25 thousand people), but fresh and well-armed army, consisting of Poles and Ukrainian Cossacks. Near Vienna, Saxon detachments also joined Jan Sobieski.

The next morning there was a battle that ended in the complete defeat of the Turks. Turkish troops left on the battlefield 20 thousand dead, all artillery and convoy. The remaining Turkish units retreated to Buda and Pest, losing another 10 thousand people while crossing the Danube. Pursuing the Turks, Jan Sobieski inflicted a new defeat on them, after which Kara Mustafa Pasha fled to Belgrade, where he was killed by order of the Sultan.

The defeat of the Turkish armed forces under the walls of Vienna was the inevitable result of the decline of the Turkish military-feudal state long before that. Regarding this event, K. Marx wrote: “... There are absolutely no grounds to believe that the decline of Turkey began from the moment when Sobieski provided assistance to the Austrian capital. Hammer's research (Austrian historian of Turkey. - Ed. irrefutably proves that the organization of the Turkish Empire was then in a state of decay, and that already some time before that the era of Ottoman power and greatness was quickly coming to an end "( K. Marx, The reorganization of the British military department. - Austrian requirements. - The economic situation in England. - Saint-Arno, K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch, vol. 10. ed. 2, p. 262.).

The defeat at Vienna put an end to the Turkish advance into Europe. From that time on, the Ottoman Empire began to gradually lose, one after another, the territories it had previously conquered.

In 1684, to fight Turkey, the "Holy League" was formed, consisting of Austria, Poland, Venice, and from 1686, Russia. The military actions of Poland were unsuccessful, but the Austrian troops in 1687-1688. occupied Eastern Hungary, Slavonia, Banat, captured Belgrade and began to move deep into Serbia. Serbian actions volunteer troops, who opposed the Turks, as well as the uprising of the Bulgarians that broke out in 1688 in Chiprovtse, created a serious threat to Turkish communications. A number of defeats were inflicted on the Turks by Venice, which captured Morea and Athens.

In the difficult international situation of the 90s of the 17th century, when the Austrian forces were diverted by the war with France (the war of the League of Augsburg), the hostilities of the "Holy League" against the Turks took on a protracted character. Nevertheless, Turkey continued to fail. An important role in the military events of this period was played by the Azov campaigns of Peter I in 1695-1696, which facilitated the task of the Austrian command in the Balkans. In 1697, the Austrians utterly defeated a large Turkish army near the city of Zenta (Senta) on the Tisza and invaded Bosnia.

Great assistance to Turkey was provided by English and Dutch diplomacy, through which in October 1698 peace negotiations were opened in Karlovitsy (in Srem). The international situation generally favored Turkey: Austria entered into separate negotiations with it in order to secure its interests and evade support for Russian demands regarding Azov and Kerch; Poland and Venice were also ready to come to terms with the Turks at the expense of Russia; the intermediary powers (England and Holland) spoke openly against Russia and generally helped the Turks more than the allies. However, the internal weakening of Turkey went so far that the Sultan was ready to end the war at any cost. Therefore, the results of the Karlowitz Congress turned out to be very unfavorable for Turkey.

In January 1699, treaties were signed between Turkey and each of the allies separately. Austria received Eastern Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia and almost all of Slavonia; only Banat (province of Temeswar) with fortresses returned to the Sultan. The peace treaty with Poland deprived the Sultan of the last remaining part of him Right-Bank Ukraine and Podolia with the Kamenets fortress. Venice, the Turks ceded part of Dalmatia and Morea. Russia, abandoned by its allies, was forced to sign with the Turks in Karlovitsy not a peace treaty, but only a truce for a period of two years, leaving Azov in its hands. Subsequently, in 1700, in the development of the terms of this truce in Istanbul, a Russian-Turkish peace treaty was concluded, which secured Azov with the surrounding lands for Russia and canceled Russia's annual "dacha" payment to the Crimean Khan.

Rebellion of Patron-Khalil

At the beginning of the XVIII century. Turkey had some military successes: the encirclement of the army of Peter I on the Prut in 1711, which resulted in the temporary loss of Azov by Russia; the capture of the Seas and a number of the Aegean islands from the Venetians in the war of 1715-1718. etc. But these successes, explained by market changes in the international situation and the fierce struggle between the European powers (the Northern War, the War of the Spanish Succession), were transient.

War of 1716-1718 with Austria brought Turkey new territorial losses in the Balkans, fixed in the Pozharevatsky (Passarovitsky) treaty. A few years later, under a 1724 treaty with Russia, Turkey was forced to renounce its claims to the Caspian regions of Iran and Transcaucasia. In the late 1920s, a powerful popular movement arose in Iran against the Turkish (and Afghan) conquerors. In 1730, Nadir Khan took away a number of provinces and cities from the Turks. In this regard, the Iranian-Turkish war began, but even before its official announcement, failures in Iran served as an impetus for a major uprising that broke out in the autumn of 1730 in Istanbul. The root causes of this uprising were connected not so much with external as with internal politics Turkish government. Despite the fact that the Janissaries actively participated in the uprising, artisans, small traders, and the urban poor were its main driving force.

Istanbul already then was a huge, multilingual and multi-tribal city. Its population probably exceeded 600 thousand people. In the first third of the XVIII century. it still increased significantly due to the massive influx of peasants. This was partly due to what was then happening in Istanbul, in the Balkan cities, as well as in the main centers of Levantine trade (Thessaloniki, Izmir, Beirut, Cairo, Alexandria) by the well-known growth of handicrafts and the emergence of manufactory production. Turkish sources of this period contain information about the creation of paper, cloth and some other manufactories in Istanbul; attempts were made to build a faience manufactory at the Sultan's palace; old enterprises expanded and new ones appeared to serve the army and navy.

The development of production was one-sided. The domestic market was extremely narrow; production served mainly foreign trade and the needs of the feudal lords, the state and the army. Nevertheless, the small-scale urban industry of Istanbul had an attractive force for the new working population, especially since the capital's artisans enjoyed many privileges and tax benefits. However, the vast majority of the peasants who fled to Istanbul from their villages did not find permanent job and joined the ranks of day laborers and homeless beggars. The government, taking advantage of the influx of newcomers, began to increase taxes and introduce new duties on handicrafts. Food prices have risen so much that the authorities, fearing unrest, were even forced several times to distribute free bread in mosques. The intensified activity of usurious capital, which more and more subordinated handicraft and small-scale production to its control, resounded heavily on the working masses of the capital.

Early 18th century was marked by widespread European fashion in Turkey, especially in the capital. The Sultan and the nobles competed in inventing amusements, arranging festivities and feasts, building palaces and parks. In the vicinity of Istanbul, on the banks of a small river, known to Europeans as the "Sweet Waters of Europe", the luxurious Sultan's Saadabad Palace and about 200 kiosks ("kiosks", small palaces) of the court nobility were built. Turkish nobles were especially sophisticated in breeding tulips, decorating their gardens and parks with them. The passion for tulips manifested itself both in architecture and in painting. A special "style of tulips" arose. This time entered the Turkish history under the name of the “period of tulips” (“lale devri”).

The luxurious life of the feudal nobility contrasted sharply with the growing poverty of the masses, increasing their discontent. The government did not take this into account. Sultan Ahmed III (1703-1730), a selfish and insignificant man, cared only about money and pleasures. The actual ruler of the state was the great vizier Ibrahim Pasha Nevsehirli, who bore the title of damada (sultan's son-in-law). He was a great statesman. Having taken the post of Grand Vizier in 1718, after signing an unfavorable treaty with Austria, he took a number of steps to improve the internal and international position of the empire. However, Damad Ibrahim Pasha replenished the state treasury by cruelly increasing the tax burden. He encouraged the predation and wastefulness of the nobility, and he himself was alien to corruption.

Tensions in the Turkish capital culminated in the summer and autumn of 1730, when, on top of everything else, the dissatisfaction of the Janissaries with the apparent inability of the government to defend the Turkish conquests in Iran was added. At the beginning of August 1730, the sultan and the grand vizier set out at the head of the army from the capital, allegedly on a campaign against the Iranians, but, having crossed to the Asian coast of the Bosphorus, they did not move further and started secret negotiations with Iranian representatives. Upon learning of this, the Janissaries of the capital called on the population of Istanbul to revolt.

The uprising began on September 28, 1730. Among its leaders were Janissaries, artisans, and representatives of the Muslim clergy. The most prominent role was played by a native of the lower classes, a former small merchant, later a sailor and janissary Patrona-Khalil, an Albanian by origin, who, with his courage and disinterestedness, gained great popularity among the masses. The events of 1730 were therefore included in the historical literature under the name of "the uprisings of Patron-Khalil."

Already on the first day, the rebels defeated the palaces and keshki of the court nobility and demanded that the Sultan issue them a grand vizier and four more senior dignitaries. Hoping to save his throne and life, Ahmed III ordered to kill Ibrahim Pasha and hand over his corpse. Nevertheless, the next day, Ahmed III, at the request of the rebels, had to abdicate in favor of his nephew Mahmud.

For about two months, power in the capital was actually in the hands of the rebels. Sultan Mahmud I (1730-1754) initially showed full agreement with Patron-Khalil. The Sultan ordered the destruction of the Saadabad Palace, abolished a number of taxes imposed under his predecessor, and, at the direction of Patron-Khalil, made some changes in the government and administration. Patrona-Khalil did not take a government post. He did not take advantage of his position to enrich himself. He even came to Divan meetings in an old shabby dress.

However, neither Patron-Khalil nor his associates had a positive program. Having dealt with the nobles hated by the people, they essentially did not know what to do next. Meanwhile, the Sultan and his entourage drew up a secret plan for the reprisal against the leaders of the uprising. On November 25, 1730, Patrona-Khalil and his closest assistants were invited to the Sultan's palace, allegedly for negotiations, and were treacherously killed.

The Sultan's government returned entirely to the old methods of government. This caused in March 1731 a new uprising. It was less powerful than the previous one, and in it the popular masses played a smaller role. The government suppressed it relatively quickly, but the unrest continued until the end of April. Only after numerous executions, arrests and expulsion from the capital of several thousand Janissaries did the government take control of the situation.

Strengthening the influence of Western powers on Turkey. Rise of the Eastern Question

The Turkish ruling class still saw its salvation in wars. The main military opponents of Turkey at that time were Austria, Venice and Russia. In the 17th and early 18th centuries the most acute were the Austro-Turkish contradictions, later - Russian-Turkish. Russian-Turkish antagonism deepened as Russia advanced to the Black Sea coast, and also due to the growth of national liberation movements of the oppressed peoples of the Ottoman Empire, who saw the Russian people as their ally.

The Turkish ruling circles took a particularly hostile position towards Russia, which they considered the main culprit of the unrest of the Balkan Christians and, in general, almost all the difficulties of the Sublime Porte ( Brilliant, or High Port Sultan government.). Therefore, the contradictions between Russia and Turkey in the second half of the XVIII century. increasingly led to armed conflicts. All this was used by France and England, which at that time increased their influence on the Sultan's government. Of all the European powers, they had the most serious trading interests in Turkey, the French owned rich trading posts in the ports of the Levant. On the embankments of Beirut or Izmir, French was more often heard than Turkish. By the end of the XVIII century. France's trade turnover with the Ottoman Empire reached 50-70 million livres per year, which exceeded the turnover of all other European powers combined. The British also had significant economic positions in Turkey, especially on the Turkish coast of the Persian Gulf. The British trading post in Basra, associated with the East India Company, became a monopolist in buying up raw materials.

During this period, France and England, engaged in colonial wars in America and India, did not yet set themselves the immediate task of capturing the territories of the Ottoman Empire. They preferred to temporarily support the weak power of the Turkish sultan, which was most advantageous for them in terms of their commercial expansion. No other power and no other government that would have replaced Turkish domination would have created such wide opportunities for unhindered trade for foreign merchants, would not have placed them in such favorable conditions compared to their own subjects. Hence the openly hostile attitude of France and England towards the liberation movements of the oppressed peoples of the Ottoman Empire; this largely explained their opposition to the advance of Russia to the shores of the Black Sea and the Balkans.

France and England alternately, and in other cases jointly, encouraged the Turkish government to act against Russia, although each new Russian-Turkish war invariably brought Turkey new defeats and new territorial losses. The Western powers were far from providing any effective assistance to Turkey. They even capitalized on Turkey's defeats in the wars with Russia by forcing the Turkish government to grant them new trade benefits.

During the Russian-Turkish war of 1735-1739, which arose largely due to the intrigues of French diplomacy, the Turkish army suffered a severe defeat near Stavuchany. Despite this, after the conclusion of a separate peace with Turkey by Austria, Russia, under the Belgrade Peace Treaty of 1739, was forced to be satisfied with the annexation of Zaporozhye and Azov. France, for the diplomatic services rendered to Turkey, received in 1740 a new capitulation, which confirmed and expanded the privileges of French subjects in Turkey: low customs duties, exemption from taxes and fees, lack of jurisdiction over the Turkish court, etc. At the same time, unlike previous capitulation letters the capitulation of 1740 was issued by the Sultan not only from own name but also as an obligation for all its future successors. Thus, capitulation privileges (which soon extended to subjects of other European powers) were fixed for a long time as Turkey's international obligation.

The Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774, which was prompted by the question of replacing the Polish throne, was also largely due to the harassment of French diplomacy. This war, which was marked by the brilliant victories of the Russian troops under the command of P. A. Rumyantsev and A. V. Suvorov and the defeat of the Turkish fleet in the Battle of Chesma, had especially difficult consequences for Turkey.

A striking example of the selfish use of Turkey by the European powers was the policy of Austria at that time. She incited the Turks in every possible way to continue the unsuccessfully proceeding war for them and undertook to provide them with economic and military aid. For this, when signing an agreement with Austria in 1771, the Turks paid the Austrians 3 million piastres in advance. However, Austria did not fulfill its obligations, evading even the diplomatic support of Turkey. Nevertheless, she not only kept the money received from Turkey, but also took Bukovina from her in 1775 under the guise of a “remainder” of compensation.

The Kyuchuk-Kaynarji peace treaty of 1774, which ended the Russian-Turkish war, marked a new stage in the development of relations between the Ottoman Empire and the European powers.

Crimea was declared independent from Turkey (in 1783 it was annexed to Russia); the Russian border advanced from the Dnieper to the Bug; The Black Sea and the straits were open to Russian merchant shipping; Russia acquired the right to patronize the Moldavian and Wallachian rulers, as well as the Orthodox Church in Turkey; capitulation privileges were extended to Russian subjects in Turkey; Turkey had to pay Russia a large indemnity. But the significance of the Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhi world was not only that the Turks suffered territorial losses. This was not new for them, and the losses were not so great, since Catherine II, in connection with the partition of Poland, and especially in connection with the Pugachev uprising, was in a hurry to end the Turkish war. Much more important for Turkey was the fact that after the Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhi peace, the balance of power in the Black Sea basin changed radically: the sharp strengthening of Russia and the equally sharp weakening of the Ottoman Empire put on the order of the day the problem of Russia's access to the Mediterranean Sea and the complete elimination of Turkish domination in Europe . The solution to this problem, since Turkey's foreign policy was increasingly losing its independence, acquired an international character. Russia, in its further advance to the Black Sea, the Balkans, Istanbul and the straits, now faced not so much with Turkey itself, but with the main European powers, who also put forward their claims to the “Ottoman heritage” and openly interfered both in Russian-Turkish relations and in the relationship between the Sultan and his Christian subjects.

Since that time, the so-called Eastern Question has been in existence, although the term itself began to be used somewhat later. Components The Eastern question was, on the one hand, the internal collapse of the Ottoman Empire, associated with the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples, and on the other hand, the struggle between the great European powers for the division of territories falling away from Turkey, primarily European ones.

In 1787 a new Russo-Turkish war began. Russia openly prepared for it, putting forward a plan for the complete expulsion of the Turks from Europe. But the initiative to break this time also belonged to Turkey, which acted under the influence of British diplomacy, which was fussing about creating a Turkish-Swedish-Prussian coalition against Russia.

The alliance with Sweden and Prussia was of little use to the Turks. Russian troops under the command of Suvorov defeated the Turks at Focsani, Rymnik and Izmail. Austria took the side of Russia. Only due to the fact that the attention of Austria, and then Russia, was diverted by events in Europe, in connection with the formation of a counter-revolutionary coalition against France, Turkey was able to end the war with relatively few losses. The Sistov peace of 1791 with Austria was concluded on the basis of the status quo (the situation that existed before the war), and according to the Iasi peace with Russia of 1792 (according to the old style of 1791), Turkey recognized the new Russian border along the Dniester, with the inclusion of Crimea and Kuban to Russia, renounced claims to Georgia, confirmed the Russian protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia and other conditions of the Kyuchuk-Kainarji treaty.

The French Revolution, having caused international complications in Europe, created a favorable situation for Turkey, which contributed to the postponement of the elimination of Turkish domination in the Balkans. But the process of disintegration of the Ottoman Empire continued. The Eastern question became even more aggravated due to the growth of the national self-consciousness of the Balkan peoples. The contradictions between the European powers also deepened, putting forward new claims to the “Ottoman heritage”: some of these powers acted openly, others under the guise of “protecting” the Ottoman Empire from the encroachment of their rivals, but in all cases this policy led to a further weakening of Turkey and the transformation her into a country dependent on the European powers.

Economic and political crisis of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 18th century.

By the end of the XVIII century. The Ottoman Empire entered a period of acute crisis that engulfed all sectors of its economy, the armed forces, and the state apparatus. The peasants languished under the yoke of feudal exploitation. According to rough estimates, in the Ottoman Empire at that time there were about a hundred different taxes, dues and duties. The severity of the tax burden was exacerbated by the taxation system. At government auctions, the highest dignitaries spoke, with whom no one dared to compete. Therefore, they received a ransom for a low fee. Sometimes the ransom was granted for life use. The original farmer usually sold the ransom at a large premium to the usurer, who resold it again until the right to farm out fell into the hands of the direct tax collector, who reimbursed and covered his costs by shamelessly robbing the peasants.

The tithe was taken in kind from all kinds of grains, horticultural crops, from the catch of fish, etc. In fact, it reached a third and even half of the harvest. The best quality products were taken from the peasant, leaving him the worst. The feudal lords, moreover, demanded that the peasants perform various duties: for the construction of roads, the supply of firewood, food, and sometimes corvée work. Complaining was useless, since the wali (governors general) and other high officials were themselves the largest landowners. If complaints sometimes reached the capital and an official was sent from there to investigate, then the pashas and beys got off with a bribe, and the peasants bore additional burdens for feeding and maintaining the auditor.

Christian peasants were subjected to double oppression. The personal tax on non-Muslims - jizya, now also called kharaj, increased dramatically in size and was levied without exception from everyone, even from babies. To this was added religious oppression. Any Janissary could commit violence against a non-Muslim with impunity. Non-Muslims were not allowed to have weapons, wear the same clothes and shoes as Muslims; Muslim court did not recognize witness testimony"infidels"; even in official documents, contemptuous and abusive nicknames were used in relation to non-Muslims.

Turkish agriculture was destroyed every year. In many areas, entire villages were left without inhabitants. The Sultan's decree in 1781 explicitly recognized that "poor subjects are fleeing, which is one of the reasons for the devastation of my highest empire." The French writer Volney, who made a trip to the Ottoman Empire in 1783-1785, noted in his book that the degradation of agriculture, which had intensified about 40 years earlier, led to the desolation of entire villages. The farmer has no incentive to expand production: "he sows just enough to live on," this author reported.

Peasant unrest arose spontaneously not only in non-Turkish regions, where the anti-feudal movement was combined with the liberation movement, but also in Turkey itself. Crowds of destitute, homeless peasants roamed Anatolia and Rumelia. Sometimes they formed armed detachments and attacked the estates of feudal lords. There were also riots in the cities. In 1767 the Pasha of Kars was killed. Troops were sent from Van to pacify the population. Then there was an uprising in Aydin, where the inhabitants killed the tax farmer. In 1782, the Russian ambassador reported to St. Petersburg that "confusion in various Anatolian regions day by day more and more leads the clergy and the ministry into care and despondency."

Attempts by individual peasants - both non-Muslims and Muslims - to quit farming were suppressed by legislative and administrative measures. A special tax was introduced for the abandonment of agriculture, which increased the attachment of peasants to the land. In addition, the feudal lord and the usurer kept the peasants in debt. The feudal lord had the right to forcibly return the departed peasant and force him to pay taxes for the entire time of absence.

The situation in the cities was still somewhat better than in the countryside. In the interests of their own security, the city authorities, and in the capital the government itself, tried to provide the townspeople with food. They took grain from the peasants at a fixed price, introduced grain monopolies, and forbade the export of grain from the cities.

Turkish handicraft in this period was not yet suppressed by the competition of European industry. Still famous at home and abroad were satin and velvet Beams, Ankara shawls, Izmir long-wool fabrics, Edirne soap and rose oil, Anatolian carpets, and especially the works of Istanbul artisans: dyed and embroidered fabrics, mother-of-pearl inlays, silver and ivory products , carved weapons, etc.

But the Turkish city's economy also showed signs of decline. Unsuccessful wars, the territorial losses of the empire reduced the already limited demand for Turkish handicrafts and manufactories. Medieval workshops (esnafs) hindered the development of commodity production. The corrupting influence of commercial and usurious capital also affected the position of the craft. In the 20s of the XVIII century. the government introduced a system of gediks (patents) for artisans and merchants. Without a gedik, it was impossible to even engage in the profession of a boatman, a peddler, a street singer. By lending money to the artisans to buy gediks, the usurers made the guilds dependent on themselves.

The development of crafts and trade was also hindered by internal customs, the presence of different measures of length and weight in each province, the arbitrariness of the authorities and local feudal lords, robbery on trade routes. The insecurity of property killed artisans and merchants any desire to expand their activities.

The defacement of the coin by the government had catastrophic consequences. The Hungarian baron de Tott, who was in the service of the Turks as a military expert, wrote in his memoirs: “The coin is damaged to such an extent that counterfeiters are now working in Turkey for the benefit of the population: whatever the alloy they use, the coin minted by the Grand Seigneur is still lower in value."

Fires, epidemics of plague and other contagious diseases raged in the cities. Frequent natural disasters like earthquakes and floods completed the ruin of the people. The government restored mosques, palaces, Janissary barracks, but did not provide assistance to the population. Many moved to the position of domestic slaves or joined the ranks of the lumpenproletariat along with the peasants who had fled from the countryside.

Against a gloomy background public ruin and poverty, the squandering of the upper classes stood out even brighter. Enormous sums were spent on the maintenance of the Sultan's court. Titled persons, wives and concubines of the Sultan, servants, pashas, ​​eunuchs, guards, there were a total of more than 12 thousand people. The palace, especially its female half (harem), was the focus of intrigue and secret conspiracies. Court favorites, sultanas, and among them the most influential - the sultana-mother (valid-sultan) received bribes from dignitaries who sought a lucrative position, from provincial pashas who sought to conceal the taxes received, from foreign ambassadors. One of the highest places in the palace hierarchy was occupied by the head of the black eunuchs - kyzlar-agasy (literally - the head of the girls). He had in his charge not only the harem, but also the personal treasury of the Sultan, the waqfs of Mecca and Medina and a number of other sources of income and enjoyed great actual power. Kyzlar-Agasy Beshir for 30 years, until the middle of the 18th century, had a decisive influence on state affairs. In the past, a slave bought in Abyssinia for 30 piastres, he left behind 29 million piastres in money, 160 luxurious armor and 800 watches adorned with precious stones. His successor, also named Beshir, enjoyed the same power, but did not get along with the higher clergy, was removed and then strangled. After that, the chiefs of the black eunuchs became more cautious and tried not to interfere openly in government affairs. Nevertheless, they retained their secret influence.

Corruption in the ruling circles of Turkey was caused, in addition to deep reasons social order, also by the obvious degeneration that befell the Osman dynasty. Sultans have long ceased to be commanders. They did not have any experience of public administration, since before accession to the throne they lived long years in strict isolation in the inner chambers of the palace. By the time of accession (which could not happen very soon, since succession to the throne in Turkey did not go in a straight line, but according to seniority in the dynasty), the crown prince was for the most part a morally and physically degenerate person. Such was, for example, Sultan Abdul-Hamid I (1774-1789), who spent 38 years imprisoned in the palace before taking the throne. The great viziers (sadrazams), as a rule, were also insignificant and ignorant people who received appointments through bribery and bribes. In the past, this position was often filled by capable statesmen. Such were, for example, in the XVI century. the famous Mehmed Sokollu, in the 17th century. - the Köprülü family, at the beginning of the 18th century. - Damad Ibrahim Pasha. Even in the middle of the XVIII century. the post of sadrazam was occupied by a prominent statesman Raghib Pasha. But after the death of Ragib Pasha in 1763, the feudal clique no longer allowed any strong and independent personality to power. In rare cases, Grand Viziers remained in office for two or three years; for the most part they were replaced several times a year. Almost always, the resignation was immediately followed by execution. Therefore, the great viziers hurried to use a few days of their lives and their power to plunder as much as possible and just as quickly squander the loot.

Many positions in the empire were officially sold. For the position of ruler of Moldavia or Wallachia, it was necessary to pay 5-6 million piastres, not counting offerings to the Sultan and bribes. The bribe became so firmly established in the habits of the Turkish administration that in the 17th century. the Ministry of Finance even had a special “accounting for bribes”, which had as its function the accounting of bribes received by officials, with the deduction of a certain share to the treasury. The positions of qadis (judges) were also sold. In compensation for the money paid, the qadis enjoyed the right to charge a certain percentage (up to 10%) from the amount of the claim, and this amount was paid not by the loser, but by the winner of the lawsuit, which encouraged the presentation of deliberately unfair claims. In criminal cases, bribery of judges was practiced openly.

The peasantry suffered especially from the judges. Contemporaries noted that "the first concern of the villagers is to hide the fact of the crime from the knowledge of the judges, whose presence is more dangerous than the presence of thieves."

The decomposition of the army, especially the Janissary corps, reached great depths. The Janissaries became the main stronghold of the reaction. They resisted any kind of reform. Janissary revolts became commonplace, and since the Sultan had no other military support besides the Janissaries, he tried his best to appease them. Upon accession to the throne, the sultan paid them the traditional reward - "julus bakhshishi" ("ascension gift"). The amount of remuneration increased in the event of the participation of the Janissaries in the coup, which led to the change of the Sultan. Entertainment and theatrical performances were organized for the Janissaries. The delay in the issuance of salaries to the Janissaries could cost the life of the minister. Once on the day of Bayram (Muslim holiday), the master of ceremonies of the court mistakenly allowed the heads of artillery and artillery to kiss the Sultan's mantle. cavalry corps earlier than the Janissary agu; the sultan immediately ordered the execution of the master of ceremonies.

In the provinces, the Janissaries often subjugated the pashas, ​​held all the administration in their hands, arbitrarily levied taxes and various fees from artisans and merchants. The Janissaries themselves were often engaged in trade, taking advantage of the fact that they did not pay any taxes and were subject only to their superiors. The lists of the Janissaries included many people who were not engaged in military affairs. Since the salaries of the Janissaries were issued upon presentation of special tickets (esame), these tickets became the subject of purchase and sale; a large number of them were in the hands of usurers and court favorites.

Discipline in other military units also dropped sharply. The number of Sipahian cavalry for 100 years, from the end of the 17th to the end of the 18th century, decreased by 10 times: for the war with Russia in 1787, it was possible with difficulty to gather 2 thousand horsemen. The feudal sipahis were always the first to flee from the battlefield.

Embezzlement reigned among the military command. The money destined for the active army or for the fortress garrisons was plundered by half in the capital, and the lion's share of the rest was appropriated by the local commanders.

Military equipment froze in the form in which it existed in the 16th century. Still used, as in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent, marble cores. The casting of cannons, the manufacture of guns and swords - all the production of military equipment by the end of the 18th century. lagged behind Europe at least for a century and a half. The soldiers wore heavy and uncomfortable clothes, used weapons of various sizes. The European armies were trained in the art of maneuvering, and the Turkish army was operating on the battlefield in a continuous and disorderly mass. The Turkish fleet, which once dominated the entire Mediterranean basin, lost its former importance after the Chesme defeat in 1770.

The weakening of the central government, the collapse of the government apparatus and the army contributed to the growth of centrifugal tendencies in the Ottoman Empire. The struggle against Turkish domination was incessantly waged in the Balkans, in the Arab countries, in the Caucasus and in other lands of the empire. By the end of the XVIII century. the separatist movements of the Turkish feudal lords themselves also acquired enormous proportions. Sometimes they were well-born feudal lords from ancient families of military fiefs, sometimes representatives of the new feudal nobility, sometimes just lucky adventurers who managed to plunder wealth and recruit their own mercenary army. They came out of submission to the Sultan and actually turned into independent kings. The Sultan's government was powerless to fight them and considered itself satisfied when it sought to receive at least part of the taxes and maintain the semblance of Sultan's sovereignty.

In Epirus and in southern Albania, Ali Pasha of Tepelena rose to prominence, later gaining great fame under the name of Ali Pasha of Janinsky. On the Danube, in Vidin, the Bosnian feudal lord Omer Pazvand-oglu recruited an entire army and became the de facto owner of the Vidin district. The government succeeded in capturing him and executing him, but soon his son Osman Pazvand-oglu came out even more strongly against the central government. Even in Anatolia, where the feudal lords had not yet openly rebelled against the sultan, real feudal principalities developed: the feudal family of Karaosman-oglu owned lands in the southwest and west, between the Great Menderes and the Sea of ​​Marmara; clan Chapan-oglu - in the center, in the region of Ankara and Yozgad; the clan of Battala Pasha is in the northeast, in the region of Samsun and Trabzon (Trapezunt). These feudal lords had their own troops, distributed land grants, and levied taxes. Sultan's officials did not dare to interfere in their actions.

Separatist tendencies were also shown by pashas appointed by the Sultan himself. The government tried to fight the pashas' separatism by moving them frequently, two or three times a year, from one province to another. But if the order was carried out, then the result was only a sharp increase in extortions from the population, since the pasha sought to reimburse his expenses for the purchase of a position, for bribes and for moving in a shorter period of time. However, over time, this method also ceased to produce results, since the pashas began to start their own mercenary armies.

Decline of culture

Turkish culture, which reached its peak in the XV-XVI centuries, already from the end of the XVI century. gradually declining. The pursuit of poets for excessive sophistication and pretentiousness of form leads to the impoverishment of the content of works. The technique of versification, the play on words, begin to be valued higher than the thought and feeling expressed in the verse. One of the last representatives of the degenerate palace poetry was Ahmed Nedim (1681-1730), a talented and brilliant spokesman for the “epoch of tulips”. Nedim's work was limited to a narrow circle of palace themes - the chanting of the Sultan, court feasts, pleasure walks, "conversations over halva" in the Saadabad Palace and kyoshkas of aristocrats, but his works were distinguished by great expressiveness, immediacy, and comparative simplicity of language. In addition to the sofa (collection of poems), Nedim left behind a translation into Turkish language of the collection "Pages of News" ("Sahaif-ul-Akhbar"), better known as "The History of the Chief Astrologer" ("Munejim-bashi tarihi").

The didactic literature of Turkey of this period is represented primarily by the work of Yusuf Nabi (d. 1712), the author of the moralistic poem "Khairie", which in some of its parts contained a sharp criticism of modern morals. A prominent place in Turkish literature also occupied symbolic poem Sheikh Talib (1757-1798) "Beauty and Love" ("Hyusn-yu Ashk").

Turkish historiography continued to develop in the form of court historical chronicles. Naima, Mehmed Reshid, Chelebi-zade Asim, Ahmed Resmi and other court historiographers, following a long tradition, described in an apologetic spirit the life and work of the sultans, military campaigns, etc. Information about foreign countries was contained in reports on Turkish embassies sent for border (sefaret-name). Along with some true observations, they contained a lot of naive and simply invented things.

In 1727, the first printing house in Turkey was opened in Istanbul. Its founder was Ibrahim-aga Muteferrika (1674-1744), a native of a poor Hungarian family, who was captured by the Turks as a boy, then converted to Islam and remained in Turkey. Among the first books printed in the printing house were Vankuli Arabic-Turkish Dictionary, historical writings Kyatiba Chelebi (Hadji Khalife), Omer Efendi. After the death of Ibrahim-aga, the printing house was inactive for almost 40 years. In 1784 she resumed her work, but even then she published a very limited number of books. The printing of the Koran was forbidden. Secular works were also mostly copied by hand.

The development of science, literature and art in Turkey was especially hindered by the dominance of Muslim scholasticism. The higher clergy did not allow secular education. Mullahs and numerous dervish orders entangled the people in a thick web of superstitions and prejudices. Signs of stagnation were found in all areas of Turkish culture. Attempts to revive the old cultural traditions were doomed to failure, the development of new ones coming from the West was reduced to blind borrowing. This was the case, for example, with architecture, which followed the path of imitation of Europe. French decorators introduced a distorted baroque into Istanbul, while Turkish builders mixed all styles and built ugly buildings. Nothing remarkable was created in painting either, where the strict proportions of the geometric ornament were violated, now replaced, under the influence of European fashion, by floral ornament with a predominance of the image of tulips.

But if the culture of the ruling class experienced a period of decline and stagnation, then folk art continued to develop steadily. Folk poets and singers enjoyed great love among the masses, reflecting freedom-loving folk dreams and aspirations, hatred of oppressors in their songs and poems. folk theater shadows of "karagez", whose ideas were distinguished by acute topicality and covered the events taking place in the country from the point of view of the common people, according to their understanding and interests.

2. Balkan peoples under Turkish rule

The position of the Balkan peoples in the second half of the 17th and 18th centuries.

The decline of the Ottoman Empire, the decomposition of the military fief system, the weakening of the power of the Sultan's government - all this was heavily reflected in the lives of the South Slavic peoples, Greeks, Albanians, Moldavians and Vlachs who were under Turkish rule. The formation of ciftliks, the desire of the Turkish feudal lords to increase the profitability of their lands worsened the position of the peasantry more and more. The distribution in the mountainous and forest regions of the Balkans to private ownership of lands that previously belonged to the state led to the enslavement of the communal peasantry. The power of the landowners over the peasants expanded, and more severe forms of feudal dependence were established than before. Starting their own economy and not content with in-kind and monetary requisitions, spahii (sipahi) forced the peasants to perform corvée. The transfer of spahiluks (Turkish - sipahilik, possession of sipahi) at the mercy of usurers, who mercilessly robbed the peasants, became widespread. Arbitrariness, bribery and arbitrariness of local authorities, Qadi judges, and tax collectors grew as the central government weakened. Janissary troops turned into one of the main sources of rebellions and turmoil in European dominions Turkey. The robbery by the Turkish army and especially by the Janissaries of the civilian population turned into a system.

In the Danubian principalities in the XVII century. the consolidation process continued boyar households and the seizure of peasant lands, accompanied by the growth of feudal dependence of the bulk of the peasantry; only a few wealthy peasants had the opportunity to obtain personal freedom for a large ransom.

The growing hatred of Turkish domination on the part of the Balkan peoples and the desire of the Turkish government to squeeze out more taxes prompted the latter to be carried out in the 17th century. a policy of complete subjugation to the Turkish authorities and feudal lords of a number of mountainous regions and outlying regions of the empire, previously controlled by local Christian authorities. In particular, the rights of rural and urban communities in Greece and Serbia, which enjoyed considerable independence, were steadily curtailed. The pressure of the Turkish authorities on the Montenegrin tribes intensified in order to force them to complete obedience and to regular payment of haracha (kharaj). The Porta sought to turn the Danubian principalities into ordinary pashaliks ruled by Turkish officials. The resistance of the strong Moldavian and Wallachian boyars did not allow this measure to be carried out, however, interference in the internal affairs of Moldavia and Wallachia and the fiscal exploitation of the principalities intensified significantly. Using the constant struggle of boyar groups in the principalities, the Porte appointed its henchmen as Moldavian and Wallachian rulers, removing them every two or three years. At the beginning of the 18th century, fearing the rapprochement of the Danubian principalities with Russia, the Turkish government began to appoint Phanariot Greeks from Istanbul as rulers ( Phanar - a quarter in Istanbul, where the Greek patriarch had his seat; Phanariots - rich and noble Greeks, from whose midst came the highest representatives of the church hierarchy and officials of the Turkish administration; Phanariots were also engaged in large trade and usury transactions.), closely associated with the Turkish feudal class and ruling circles.

The aggravation of contradictions within the empire and the growth of social struggle in it led to the growth of religious antagonism between Muslims and Christians. The manifestations of Muslim religious fanaticism and the discriminatory policy of the Porte towards Christian subjects intensified, attempts to forcibly convert Bulgarian villages, entire Montenegrin and Albanian tribes to Islam became more frequent.

The Orthodox clergy of the Serbs, Montenegrins and Bulgarians, who enjoyed great political influence among their peoples, often actively participated in anti-Turkish movements. Therefore, the Porte was extremely distrustful of the South Slavic clergy, sought to belittle its political role, to prevent its ties with Russia and other Christian states. But the Phanariot clergy enjoyed the support of the Turks. Porta condoned the Hellenization of the South Slavic peoples, Moldavians and Vlachs, which the Greek hierarchy and the Phanariots who stood behind it tried to carry out. The Patriarchate of Constantinople appointed only Greeks to the highest church positions, who burned Church Slavonic books, did not allow church services in a language other than Greek, etc. Hellenization was especially active in Bulgaria and the Danubian principalities, but it met with strong resistance from the masses .

Serbia in the 18th century the highest church positions were also seized by the Greeks, which led to the rapid breakdown of the entire church organization, which previously played a large role in maintaining national identity and folk traditions. In 1766, the Patriarchate of Constantinople obtained from the Porte the issuance of firmans (sultan's decrees), which brought the autocephalous Patriarchate of Pec and the Archbishopric of Ohrid under the authority of the Greek Patriarch.

The medieval backwardness of the Ottoman Empire, the economic disunity of the regions, and cruel national and political oppression hampered the economic progress of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula enslaved by Turkey. But, despite the unfavorable conditions, in a number of regions of the European part of Turkey in the XVII-XVIII centuries. significant shifts were observed in the economy. The development of productive forces and commodity-money relations, however, proceeded unevenly: first of all, it was found in some coastal areas, in areas located along the course of large rivers and on international trade routes. So, in the coastal parts of Greece and on the islands, the shipbuilding industry grew. In Bulgaria, textile crafts developed significantly, serving the needs of the Turkish army and the urban population. In the Danubian principalities, enterprises for the processing of agricultural raw materials, textile, paper and glass manufactories, based on serf labor, arose.

A characteristic phenomenon of this period was the growth of new cities in some areas of European Turkey. So, for example, in the foothills of the Balkans, in Bulgaria, in areas remote from Turkish centers, a number of commercial and handicraft Bulgarian settlements arose, serving the local market (Kotel, Sliven, Gabrovo, etc.).

The internal market in the Balkan possessions of Turkey was poorly developed. The economy of areas remote from large urban centers and trade routes was still mostly natural in nature, but the growth of trade gradually destroyed their isolation. Foreign and transit trade, which was in the hands of foreign merchants, has long been of paramount importance in the economy of the countries of the Balkan Peninsula. However, in the XVII century. in connection with the decline of Dubrovnik and Italian cities, local merchants begin to take a stronger position in trade. The Greek commercial and usurious bourgeoisie acquired especially great economic strength in Turkey, subordinating the weaker South Slavic merchant class to its influence.

The development of trade and commercial and usurious capital, despite the general backwardness of social relations among the Balkan peoples, did not yet create the conditions for the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. But the further, the more obvious it became that the economy of the Balkan peoples, who were under the yoke of Turkey, was developing in an independent way; that they, living in the most unfavorable conditions, nevertheless overtake in their social development the nationality that dominates the state. All this made the struggle of the Balkan peoples for their national-political liberation inevitable.

The liberation struggle of the Balkan peoples against the Turkish yoke

During the XVII-XVIII centuries. in various parts of the Balkan Peninsula, uprisings broke out more than once against Turkish domination. These movements were usually local in nature, did not arise simultaneously, and were not sufficiently prepared. They were mercilessly suppressed by Turkish troops. But time passed, failures were forgotten, hopes for liberation revived with renewed vigor, and with them new uprisings arose.

The main driving force in the uprisings was the peasantry. Often, the urban population, the clergy, even the Christian feudal lords who survived in some areas, and in Serbia and Montenegro, the local Christian authorities (knezes, governors and tribal leaders) often took part in them. In the Danubian principalities, the struggle against Turkey was usually led by the boyars, who hoped to free themselves from Turkish dependence with the help of neighboring states.

The liberation movement of the Balkan peoples took on particularly broad dimensions during the war of the Holy League with Turkey. The successes of the Venetian and Austrian troops, joining the anti-Turkish coalition of Russia, with which the Balkan peoples were connected by the unity of religion - all this inspired the enslaved Balkan peoples to fight for their liberation. In the first years of the war, an uprising against the Turks began to be prepared in Wallachia. Gospodar Shcherban Kantakuzino conducted secret negotiations for an alliance with Austria. He even recruited an army hidden in the forests and mountains of Wallachia to move it at the first signal of the Holy League. Cantacuzino intended to unite and lead the uprisings of other peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. But these plans were not destined to come true. The aspirations of the Habsburgs and Polish king Jan Sobieski to seize the Danube principalities in his hands forced the Wallachian ruler to abandon the idea of ​​an uprising.

When in 1688 the Austrian troops approached the Danube, and then took Belgrade and began to move south, in Serbia, Western Bulgaria, Macedonia, a strong anti-Turkish movement began. The local population joined the advancing Austrian troops, volunteer couples (partisan detachments) began to spontaneously form, which successfully conducted independent military operations.

At the end of 1688, an uprising against the Turks arose in the center of ore development in the northwestern part of Bulgaria - the city of Chiprovtse. Its participants were the craft and trade population of the city, as well as residents of the surrounding villages. The leaders of the movement hoped that the Austrians approaching Bulgaria would help them drive out the Turks. But the Austrian army did not arrive in time to help the rebels. Chiprovets were defeated, and the city of Chiprovets was swept off the face of the earth.

The policy of the Habsburgs at that time had as its main goal the possession of lands in the Danube basin, as well as the Adriatic coast. Not having sufficient military forces to carry out such broad plans, the emperor hoped to wage war with Turkey with the forces of local rebels. The Austrian emissaries called on the Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins to revolt, tried to win over the local Christian authorities (knezes and governor), tribal leaders, baked patriarch Arseny Chernoyevich.

The Habsburgs tried to make George Brankovich, a Serbian feudal lord living in Transylvania, an instrument of this policy. Brankovich pretended to be a descendant of the Serbian sovereigns and cherished a plan for the revival of an independent state, including all the South Slavic lands. The project of creating such a state, which is under the Austrian protectorate, Brankovich presented to the emperor. This project did not correspond to the interests of the Habsburgs, and it was not real. Nevertheless, the Austrian court brought Brankovich closer to itself, granting him the title of count as a descendant of the Serbian despots. In 1688 Georgy Brankovich was sent to the Austrian command to prepare the action of the population of Serbia against the Turks. However, Brankovich left the Austrians and tried to independently organize an uprising of the Serbs. Then the Austrians arrested him and kept him in prison until his death.

Hopes for liberation with the help of the Habsburgs ended in severe disappointment for the southern Slavs. After a successful raid into the depths of Serbia and Macedonia, carried out mainly by the forces of the Serbian volunteer army with the assistance of the local population and haiduks, the Austrians at the end of 1689 began to suffer defeat from the Turkish troops. Fleeing from the revenge of the Turks, who destroyed everything in their path, the local population left after the retreating Austrian troops. This "great migration" took on a mass character. From Serbia at that time, mainly from its southern and southwestern regions, about 60-70 thousand people fled to the Austrian possessions. In the following years of the war, Serbian volunteer detachments, under the command of their commander, fought against the Turks as part of the Austrian troops.

During the war of the Venetians against the Turks in the mid-80s and early 90s of the XVII century. a strong anti-Turkish movement arose among the Montenegrin and Albanian tribes. This movement was strongly encouraged by Venice, which concentrated all its military forces in the Sea, and in Dalmatia and Montenegro expected to wage war with the help of the local population. The Pasha of Shkodra Suleiman Bushatly repeatedly undertook punitive expeditions against the Montenegrin tribes. In 1685 and 1692 Turkish troops twice captured the residence of the Montenegrin metropolitans of Cetinje. But the Turks were never able to hold their ground in this small mountainous region, which fought hard for complete independence from the Porte.

The specific conditions in which Montenegro found itself after the Turkish conquest, the dominance of backward social relations and patriarchal remnants in it contributed to the growth of the political influence of the local metropolitans, who led the struggle for the national-political liberation and unification of the Montenegrin tribes. Of great importance was the reign of the talented statesman Metropolitan Danila Petrovich Negosh (1697-1735). Danila Petrovich stubbornly fought for the complete liberation of Montenegro from the power of the Port, which did not leave attempts to restore its positions in this strategically important area. In order to undermine the influence of the Turks, he exterminated or expelled from the country all the Montenegrins who converted to Islam (Turchenians). Danila also carried out some reforms that contributed to the centralization of government and the weakening of tribal hostility.

From the end of the 17th century the political and cultural ties of the southern Slavs, Greeks, Moldavians and Vlachs with Russia are expanding and strengthening. The tsarist government sought to expand its political influence among the peoples subject to Turkey, which in the future could become an important factor in deciding the fate of Turkish possessions in Europe. From the end of the 17th century the Balkan peoples began to attract more and more attention of Russian diplomacy. The oppressed peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, for their part, have long seen their common faith in Russia as their patroness and hoped that the victories of the Russian arms would bring them liberation from the Turkish yoke. Russia's entry into the Holy League prompted representatives of the Balkan peoples to establish direct contact with the Russians. In 1688, the Wallachian ruler Shcherban Kantakuzino, the former Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius and the Serbian patriarch Arseniy Chernoevich sent letters to the Russian tsars Ivan and Peter, in which they described the suffering of the Orthodox peoples in Turkey and asked Russia to send its troops to the Balkans to liberate the Christian peoples. Although the operations of the Russian troops in the war of 1686-1699. developed far from the Balkans, which did not allow the Russians to establish direct contacts with the Balkan peoples, the tsarist government already at that time began to put forward as the reason for the war with Turkey its desire to free the Balkan peoples from its yoke and acts in the international arena as a defender of the interests of all Orthodox Christians in general subjects of the Porte. The Russian autocracy adhered to this position during the entire further struggle with Turkey in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Setting as his goal to achieve Russia's access to the Black Sea, Peter I counted on help from the Balkan peoples. In 1709, he entered into a secret alliance with the Wallachian ruler Konstantin Brankovan, who promised, in case of war, to go over to the side of Russia, put up a detachment of 30 thousand people, and also supply Russian troops with food. Moldavian ruler Dimitri Cantemir also pledged to provide Peter with military assistance and concluded an agreement with him on the transfer of Moldovans to Russian citizenship, subject to the provision of full internal independence to Moldova. In addition, the Austrian Serbs promised their assistance, a large detachment of which was supposed to join the Russian troops. Starting the Prut campaign in 1711, the Russian government issued a charter calling all the peoples enslaved by Turkey to arms. But the failure of the Prut campaign stopped the anti-Turkish movement of the Balkan peoples at the very beginning. Only Montenegrins and Herzego-Vintians, having received a letter from Peter I, began to undertake military sabotage against the Turks. This circumstance gave rise to close ties between Russia and Montenegro. Metropolitan Danila visited Russia in 1715, after which Peter I established periodic cash benefits for Montenegrins.

As a result of a new war between Turkey and Austria in 1716-1718, in which the population of Serbia also fought on the side of the Austrians, Banat, the northern part of Serbia and Lesser Wallachia fell under the rule of the Habsburgs. However, the population of these lands, freed from the power of the Turks, fell into no less heavy dependence on the Austrians. Taxes have been raised. The Austrians forced their new subjects to accept Catholicism or Uniatism, and the Orthodox population suffered severe religious oppression. All this caused great discontent and the flight of many Serbs and Wallachians to Russia or even to Turkish possessions. At the same time, the Austrian occupation of northern Serbia contributed to some development of commodity-money relations in this area, which later led to the formation of a layer of the rural bourgeoisie.

The next war between Turkey and Austria, which the latter waged in alliance with Russia, ended with the loss of Lesser Wallachia and Northern Serbia by the Habsburgs in the Peace of Belgrade in 1739, however, Serbian lands remained in the Austrian monarchy - Banat, Bačka, Baranya, Srem. During this war, an uprising against the Turks broke out again in Southwestern Serbia, which, however, did not take on a wide character and was quickly suppressed. This unsuccessful war halted Austrian expansion in the Balkans and led to a further decline in the political influence of the Habsburgs among the Balkan peoples.

From the middle of the XVIII century. the leading role in the fight against Turkey passes to Russia. In 1768, Catherine II entered the war with Turkey and, following Peter's policy, appealed to the Balkan peoples to rise up against Turkish domination. The successful military actions of Russia stirred up the Balkan peoples. The appearance of the Russian fleet off the coast of Greece caused in 1770 an uprising in Morea and on the islands of the Aegean Sea. At the expense of Greek merchants, a fleet was created, which, under the leadership of Lambros Katzonis, at one time waged a successful war with the Turks at sea.

A Croatian warrior on the Austro-Turkish border ("border"). Drawing of the middle of the XVIII century.

The entry of Russian troops into Moldavia and Wallachia was enthusiastically received by the population. From Bucharest and Iasi, delegations of boyars and clergy went to St. Petersburg, asking to accept the principalities under Russian protection.

The Kyuchuk-Kainarji peace of 1774 was of great importance for the Balkan peoples. A number of articles of this treaty were devoted to the Christian peoples subject to Turkey and gave Russia the right to protect their interests. The return of the Danubian principalities to Turkey was subject to a number of conditions aimed at improving the situation of their population. Objectively, these articles of the treaty made it easier for the Balkan peoples to fight for their liberation. The further policy of Catherine II in the Eastern Question, regardless of the aggressive goals of tsarism, also contributed to the revival of the national liberation movement of the Balkan peoples and the further expansion of their political and cultural ties with Russia.

The beginning of the national revival of the Balkan peoples

Several centuries of Turkish domination did not lead to the denationalization of the Balkan peoples. South Slavs, Greeks, Albanians, Moldavians and Vlachs retained their national languages, culture, folk traditions; under the conditions of a foreign yoke, although slowly, but steadily, elements of an economic community developed.

The first signs of the national revival of the Balkan peoples appeared in the 18th century. They were expressed in the cultural and educational movement, in the revival of interest in their historical past, in the intensified desire to raise public education, improve the system of education in schools, and introduce elements of secular education. The cultural and educational movement began first among the Greeks, the most socio-economically developed people, and then among the Serbs and Bulgarians, Moldavians and Vlachs.

The enlightenment movement had its own characteristics for each Balkan people and did not develop simultaneously. But its social base in all cases was the national trade and craft class.

The difficult conditions for the formation of the national bourgeoisie among the Balkan peoples determined the complexity and inconsistency of the content of national movements. In Greece, for example, where commercial and usurious capital was most powerful and closely connected with the entire Turkish regime and with the activities of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the beginning of the national movement was accompanied by the emergence of great-power ideas, plans for the revival of the great Greek Empire on the ruins of Turkey and the subjugation of the rest of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula to the Greeks. These ideas found practical expression in the Hellenizing efforts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Phanariots. At the same time, the ideology of the Greek enlighteners, the development of the Greeks public education, school affairs had a positive impact on other Balkan peoples and accelerated the emergence of similar movements among the Serbs and Bulgarians.

At the head of the enlightenment movement of the Greeks in the XVIII century. scientists, writers and teachers Evgennos Voulgaris (died in 1806) and Nikiforos Theotokis (died in 1800), and later an outstanding public figure, scientist and publicist Adamantios Korais (1748-1833) stood. His works, imbued with love of freedom and patriotism, instilled in compatriots a love for the motherland, freedom, Greek, in which Korais saw the first and most important instrument of national revival.

Among the southern Slavs, the national enlightenment movement first of all began in the Serbian lands subject to the Habsburgs. With the active support of the Serbian trade and craft class, which had become stronger here, in the second quarter of the 18th century. in Banat, Bačka, Baranya, Srem, schooling, Serbian writing, secular literature, and book printing begin to develop.

The development of enlightenment among the Austrian Serbs at that time took place under strong Russian influence. At the request of the Serbian Metropolitan, in 1726, the Russian teacher Maxim Suvorov arrived in Karlovitsy to organize the school business. Emanuil Kozachinsky, a native of Kyiv, headed the “Latin School” founded in Karlovichi in 1733. Many Russians and Ukrainians taught in other Serbian schools. Serbs also received books and textbooks from Russia. The consequence of Russian cultural influence on the Austrian Serbs was the transition from the Serbian Church Slavonic language used earlier in writing to the Russian Church Slavonic language.

The main representative of this trend was the outstanding Serbian writer and historian Jovan Rajic (1726 - 1801). Under strong Russian influence, the activities of another well-known Serbian writer, Zakhariy Orfelin (1726 - 1785), who wrote the fundamental work "The Life and Glorious Deeds of the Sovereign Emperor Peter the Great", also developed. The cultural and educational movement among the Austrian Serbs received a new impetus in the second half of the 18th century, when the outstanding writer, scientist and philosopher Dosifey Obradovic (1742-1811) began his work. Obradovic was a supporter of enlightened absolutism. His ideology was formed to a certain extent under the influence of the philosophy of the European enlighteners. At the same time, it had a purely national basis. Obradovic's views subsequently received wide recognition among the trade and craft class and the emerging bourgeois intelligentsia, not only among the Serbs, but also among the Bulgarians.

In 1762, the monk Paisiy Hilendarsky (1722-1798) completed Slavonic-Bulgarian History, a journalistic treatise based on historical data, directed primarily against Greek dominance and the impending denationalization of the Bulgarians. Paisius called for the revival of the Bulgarian language and public thought. Bishop Sofroniy (Stoyko Vladislavov) (1739-1814) was a talented follower of the ideas of Paisius of Hilendarsky.

The outstanding Moldavian educator Dimitri Cantemir (1673 - 1723) wrote a satirical novel "Hieroglyphic History", a philosophical and didactic poem "The dispute of the sage with the sky or the litigation of the soul with the body" and a number of historical works. The development of the culture of the Moldavian people was also greatly influenced by the prominent historian and linguist Enakits Vekerescu (c. 1740 - c. 1800).

The national revival of the Balkan peoples took on a wider scope at the beginning of the next century.

3. Arab countries under Turkish rule

The decline of the Ottoman Empire was reflected in the position of the Arab countries that were part of it. During the period under review, the power of the Turkish Sultan in North Africa, including Egypt, was largely nominal. In Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, it was sharply weakened by popular uprisings and rebellions of local feudal lords. In Arabia, a broad religious and political movement arose - Wahhabism, which set as its goal the complete expulsion of the Turks from the Arabian Peninsula.

Egypt

In the XVII-XVIII centuries. some new phenomena are observed in the economic development of Egypt. Peasant farming is increasingly being drawn into market ties. In a number of areas, especially in the Nile Delta, the rent-tax takes the form of money. Foreign travelers of the late 18th century. describe a lively trade in the urban markets of Egypt, where the peasants delivered grain, vegetables, livestock, wool, cheese, butter, homemade yarn and bought fabrics, clothes, utensils, and metal products in return. Trade was also carried out directly in the village markets. Significant development has been achieved trade relations between different regions of the country. According to contemporaries, in the middle of the XVIII century. from the southern regions of Egypt, down the Nile, to Cairo and into the delta region, there were ships with grain, sugar, beans, linen fabrics and linseed oil; in the opposite direction were goods of cloth, soap, rice, iron, copper, lead, salt.

Foreign trade relations have also grown significantly. In the XVII-XVIII centuries. Egypt exported cotton and linen fabrics, leather, sugar, ammonia, as well as rice and wheat to European countries. Lively trade was conducted with neighboring countries - Syria, Arabia, Maghreb (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco), Sudan, Darfur. A significant part of the transit trade with India passed through Egypt. At the end of the XVIII century. in Cairo alone, 5,000 merchants were engaged in foreign trade.

In the XVIII century. in a number of industries, especially in industries working for export, the transition to manufacture began. Manufactories were founded in Cairo, Mahalla Kubra, Rosetta, Kus, Kina and other cities, producing silk, cotton and linen fabrics. Each of these manufactories employed hundreds of wage laborers; on the largest of them - in Mahalla-Kubra, from 800 to 1000 people were constantly employed. Wage labor was used in oil mills, sugar and other factories. Sometimes feudal lords, in company with sugar refiners, founded enterprises on their estates. Often the owners of manufactories, large craft workshops and shops were representatives of the higher clergy, the rulers of vaqfs.

The technique of production was still primitive, but the division of labor within manufactories contributed to an increase in its productivity and a significant increase in output.

By the end of the XVIII century. in Cairo, there were 15 thousand hired workers and 25 thousand artisans. Wage labor also began to be used in agriculture: thousands of peasants were hired for field work in neighboring large estates.

However, under the conditions then existing in Egypt, the germs of capitalist relations could not develop significantly. As in other parts of the Ottoman Empire, the property of merchants, owners of manufactories and workshops was not protected from the encroachments of pashas and beys. Excessive taxes, requisitions, indemnities, extortion ruined merchants and artisans. The regime of capitulations ousted local merchants from more profitable branches of trade, ensuring the monopoly of European merchants and their agents. In addition, as a result of the systematic robbery of the peasantry, the domestic market was extremely unstable and narrow.

Along with the development of trade, the feudal exploitation of the peasantry grew steadily. New ones were constantly added to the old taxes. The multazims (landlords) levied taxes on the fellahs (peasants) to pay tribute to the Porte, taxes on the upkeep of the army, provincial authorities, village administration and religious institutions, fees for their own needs, as well as many other fees, sometimes charged without any reason. List of taxes collected from the peasants of one of the Egyptian villages, published by the French explorer of the XVIII century. Estev, contained over 70 titles. In addition to taxes, statutory, all kinds of additional requisitions based on custom were widely used. “It is enough that the amount is collected 2-3 years in a row,” Estev wrote, “so that it is then demanded on the basis of customary law.”

Feudal oppression increasingly provoked uprisings against Mamluk domination. In the middle of the XVIII century. the Mamluk feudal lords were expelled from Upper Egypt by the Bedouins, whose uprising was suppressed only by 1769. Soon a large uprising of the fellahs broke out in the Tanta district (1778), also suppressed by the Mamluks.

The Mamluks still firmly held power in their hands. Although formally they were vassals of the Porte, the power of the Turkish pashas sent from Istanbul was illusory. In 1769, during the Russian-Turkish war, the Mamluk ruler Ali Bey proclaimed the independence of Egypt. Having received some support from A. Orlov, commander of the Russian fleet in the Aegean Sea, at first he successfully resisted the Turkish troops, but then the uprising was crushed, and he himself was killed. Nevertheless, the power of the Mamluk feudal lords did not weaken; the place of the deceased Ali Bey was taken by the leaders of another Mamluk group hostile to him. Only at the beginning of the XIX century. Mamluk power was overthrown.

Syria and Lebanon

Sources of the XVII-XVIII centuries. contain scant information about the economic development of Syria and Lebanon. There are no data on internal trade, on manufactories, on the use of hired labor. More or less accurate information is available about the growth in the period under review of foreign trade, the emergence of new trade and craft centers, and the strengthening of the specialization of regions. There is also no doubt that in Syria and Lebanon, as in Egypt, the scale of feudal exploitation increased, the struggle within the feudal class intensified, and the liberation struggle of the masses against foreign oppression grew.

In the second half of the 17th and early 18th centuries of great importance was the struggle between two groups of Arab feudal lords - the Kaisites (or "Reds", as they called themselves) and the Yemenites (or "Whites"). The first of these groups, led by emirs from the Maan clan, opposed Turkish domination and therefore enjoyed the support of the Lebanese peasants; this was her strength. The second group, headed by emirs from the Alam-ad-din clan, served the Turkish authorities and, with their help, fought against their rivals.

After the suppression of the uprising of Fakhr-ad-Din II and his execution (1635), the Port handed over the Sultan's firman to govern Lebanon to the leader of the Yemenites, Emir Alam-ad-Din, but soon the Turkish protege was overthrown by a new popular uprising. The rebels elected the nephew of Fakhr-ad-din II, Emir Mel-hem Maan, as the ruler of Lebanon, and Porta was forced to approve this choice. However, she did not give up trying to remove the Qaysites from power and put her supporters at the head of the Lebanese principality.

In 1660, the troops of Damascus Pasha Ahmed Koprulu (son of the Grand Vizier) invaded Lebanon. According to the Arabic chronicle, the pretext for this military expedition was the fact that the vassals and allies of the Maans - the emirs of Shihaba "incited the Damascenes against the pasha." Acting together with the Yemenite militias, Turkish troops occupied and burned a number of mountainous villages in Lebanon, including the capital of the Maans - Dayr al-Qamar and the residences of the Shihabs - Rashaya (Rashaya) and Hasbeya (Hasbaya). The Kaysite emirs were forced to retreat with their squads to the mountains. But popular support eventually ensured their victory over the Turks and Yemenites. In 1667, the Kaisit group returned to power.

In 1671, a new clash between the Kaisites and the troops of the Damascus Pasha led to the occupation and sack of Rashaya by the Turks. But in the end, the victory again remained with the Lebanese. Other attempts by the Turkish authorities to put emirs from the Alam-ad-din clan at the head of Lebanon, undertaken in last quarter 17th century

In 1710, the Turks, together with the Yemenites, again attacked Lebanon. Having overthrown the Kaysite emir Haidar from the Shihab clan (the emir throne passed to this clan in 1697, after the death of the last emir from the Maan clan), they turned Lebanon into an ordinary Turkish pashalik. However, already in the next 1711, in the battle of Ain Dar, the troops of the Turks and Yemenites were defeated by the Qaysits. Most of the Yemenites, including the entire family of Alam-ad-din emirs, died in this battle. The victory of the Kaysites was so impressive that the Turkish authorities had to abandon the organization of the Lebanese pashalik; for a long time they refrained from interfering in the internal affairs of Lebanon.

The victory at Ain Dar was won by the Lebanese peasants, but this did not lead to an improvement in their situation. Emir Haidar limited himself to taking away the destinies (mukataa) from the Yemenite feudal lords and distributing them among his supporters.

From the middle of the XVIII century. The feudal principality of Safad in northern Palestine became the center of the struggle against Turkish rule. Its ruler, the son of one of the Kaysites, Sheikh Dagir, gradually rounding off the possessions received by his father from the Lebanese Emir, extended his power to the whole of Northern Palestine and a number of regions of Lebanon. Around 1750, he acquired a small seaside village - Akku. According to the testimony of the Russian officer Pleshcheev, who visited Akka in 1772, by that time it had become a major center of maritime trade and handicraft production. Many merchants and artisans from Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus and other parts of the Ottoman Empire settled in Akka. Although Dagir levied significant taxes on them and applied the system of monopolies and farming, common in the Ottoman Empire, the conditions for the development of trade and crafts were apparently somewhat better here than in other cities: feudal taxes were strictly fixed, and the life and property of the merchant and artisan were protected from arbitrariness. In Akka were the ruins of a fortress built by the crusaders. Dagir restored this fortress, created his own army and navy.

The actual independence and growing wealth of the new Arab principality aroused the discontent and greed of the neighboring Turkish authorities. Since 1765, Dagir had to defend himself against three Turkish pashas - Damascus, Tripoli and Said. At first, the struggle was reduced to episodic clashes, but in 1769, after the start of the Russo-Turkish war, Dagir led an Arab popular uprising against Turkish oppression. He entered into an alliance with the Mamluk ruler of Egypt, Ali Bey. The allies took Damascus, Beirut, Said (Sidon), laid siege to Jaffa. Russia provided significant assistance to the rebellious Arabs. Russian warships cruised along the Lebanese coast, bombarded Beirut during the assault on its fortress by the Arabs, delivered guns, shells and other weapons to the Arab rebels.

In 1775, a year after the end of the Russian-Turkish war, Dagir was besieged in Akka and soon killed, and his principality fell apart. Akka became the residence of the Turkish pasha Ahmed, nicknamed Jazzar ("The Butcher"). But the struggle of the popular masses of Syria and Lebanon against Turkish oppression continued.

During the last quarter of the XVIII century. Jazzar continuously increased tribute from the Arab regions subject to him. So, the tribute levied from Lebanon increased from 150 thousand piastres in 1776 to 600 thousand piastres in 1790. To pay it, a number of new fees, previously unknown to Lebanon, were introduced - a poll tax, taxes on sericulture, on mills etc. The Turkish authorities again began to openly interfere in the internal affairs of Lebanon, their troops, sent to collect tribute, plundered and burned the villages, exterminated the inhabitants. All this caused continuous uprisings, weakening the power of Turkey over the Arab lands.

Iraq

In terms of economic development, Iraq lagged behind Egypt and Syria. Of the formerly numerous cities in Iraq, only Baghdad and Basra retained to a certain extent the importance of large handicraft centers; woolen fabrics, carpets, leather products were made here. But through the country there was transit trade between Europe and Asia, which brought significant income, and this circumstance, as well as the struggle for the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf located in Iraq, made Iraq the object of a sharp Turkish-Iranian struggle. Transit trade attracted English merchants to the country, who in the 17th century. founded the trading post of the East India Company in Basra, and in the XVIII century. - in Baghdad.

The Turkish conquerors divided Iraq into two pashaliks (eyalets): Mosul and Baghdad. In the Mosul pashalik, populated mainly by Kurds, there was a military system. The Kurds - both nomads and settled farmers - still retained the features of tribal life, the division into ashirets (clans). But their communal lands and most of the livestock have long been the property of the leaders, and the leaders themselves - khans, beks and sheikhs - have turned into feudal lords who enserfed their fellow tribesmen.

However, the power of the Porte over the Kurdish feudal lords was very fragile, which was explained by the crisis of the military system that was observed in the XVII-XVIII centuries. throughout the Ottoman Empire. Using the Turkish-Iranian rivalry, the Kurdish feudal lords often evaded their military duties, and sometimes openly took the side of the Iranian Shah against the Turkish Sultan or maneuvered between the Sultan and the Shah in order to achieve greater independence. In turn, the Turkish pashas, ​​seeking to strengthen their power, kindled enmity between the Kurds and their Arab neighbors and Christian minorities and encouraged strife among the Kurdish feudal lords.

In the Baghdad pashalik, inhabited by Arabs, in 1651 a tribal uprising broke out, led by the feudal family of Siyab. It led to the expulsion of the Turks from the district of Basra. Only in 1669, after repeated military expeditions, did the Turks manage to re-install their pasha in Basra. But already in 1690, the Arab tribes settled in the Euphrates valley, united in the Muntafik union, rebelled. The rebels occupied Basra and for a number of years waged a successful war against the Turks.

Appointed at the beginning of the XVIII century. As the ruler of Baghdad, Hasan Pasha fought for 20 years against the Arab agricultural and Bedouin tribes of southern Iraq. He concentrated in his hands power over all of Iraq, including Kurdistan, and secured it to his "dynasty": throughout the 18th century. the country was ruled by pashas from among his descendants or his külemens ( Külemen - white slave(usually of Caucasian origin), a soldier in a mercenary army composed of slaves, the same as in Egypt, the Mamluk.). Hassan Pasha created a government and court in Baghdad on the Istanbul model, acquired own army, formed from Janissaries and Kulemens. He was related to the Arab sheikhs, gave them ranks and gifts, took away lands from some tribes and endowed them with others, kindled enmity and civil strife. But even with these maneuvers, he failed to make his power stable: it was weakened by the almost continuous uprisings of the Arab tribes, especially the muntafiks, who most vigorously defended their freedom.

A new big wave of popular uprisings broke out in southern Iraq at the end of the 18th century. in connection with the intensification of feudal exploitation and a sharp increase in the amount of tribute. The uprisings were crushed by Suleiman Pasha of Baghdad, but they dealt a serious blow to Turkish dominance in Iraq.

Arabia. Rise of Wahhabism

On the Arabian Peninsula, the power of the Turkish conquerors was never strong. In 1633, as a result of popular uprisings, the Turks were forced to leave Yemen, which became an independent feudal state. But they stubbornly held out in the Hijaz: the Turkish sultans attached exceptional importance to their nominal dominance over the holy cities of Islam - Mecca and Medina, which served as the basis for their claims to spiritual power over all "orthodox" Muslims. In addition, during the Hajj (Muslim pilgrimage) season, these cities turned into grandiose fairs, centers of lively trade, which brought significant income to the Sultan's treasury. Therefore, the Porte not only did not impose tribute on the Hijaz, but, on the contrary, obliged the pashas of the neighboring Arab countries - Egypt and Syria - to annually send gifts to Mecca for the local spiritual nobility and give generous subsidies to the leaders of the Hijaz tribes, through whose territory the caravans of pilgrims passed. For the same reason, real power within the Hijaz was left to the Meccan spiritual feudal lords - sheriffs, who had long enjoyed influence over the townspeople and nomadic tribes. The Turkish pasha of Hijaz was not in fact the ruler of the country, but the representative of the Sultan to the sheriff.

In Eastern Arabia in the 17th century, after the expulsion of the Portuguese from there, an independent state arose in Oman. Arab merchants of Oman possessed a significant fleet and, like European merchants, were engaged in piracy along with trade. At the end of the XVII century. they took the island of Zanzibar and the African coast adjacent to it from the Portuguese, and at the beginning of the 18th century. expelled the Iranians from the Bahrain Islands (later, in 1753, the Iranians regained Bahrain). In 1737, under Nadir Shah, the Iranians tried to seize Oman, but a popular uprising that broke out in 1741 ended in their expulsion. The leader of the uprising, the Muscat merchant Ahmed ibn Said, was proclaimed the hereditary imam of Oman. Its capitals were Rastak - a fortress in the inner mountainous part of the country, and Muscat - a trading center on the sea coast. During this period, Oman pursued an independent policy, successfully resisting the penetration of European merchants - the British and French, who tried in vain to obtain permission to set up their trading posts in Muscat.

The coast of the Persian Gulf to the northwest of Oman was inhabited by independent Arab tribes - Javas, Atban, etc., who were engaged in sea crafts, mainly pearl fishing, as well as trade and piracy. In the XVIII century. Atbans built the fortress of Kuwait, which became a significant trading center and capital principality of the same name. In 1783, one of the divisions of this tribe occupied the Bahrain Islands, which after that also became an independent Arab principality. Small principalities were also founded on the Qatar peninsula and at various points on the so-called Pirate Coast (present-day Trucial Oman).

The inner part of the Arabian Peninsula - Nejd - was in the XVII-XVIII centuries. almost completely isolated from outside world. Even the Arab chronicles of that time, compiled in neighboring countries, remain silent about the events that took place in Nejd and, apparently, remained unknown to their authors. Meanwhile, it was in Nejd that arose in the middle of the 18th century. movement, which subsequently played a major role in the history of the entire Arab East.

The real political goal of this movement was to unite the disparate small feudal principalities and independent tribes of Arabia into a single state. Constant strife between tribes over pastures, nomadic raids on the settled population of oases and merchant caravans, feudal strife were accompanied by the destruction of irrigation facilities, the destruction of gardens and groves, theft of herds, the ruin of peasants, merchants and a significant part of the Bedouins. Only the unification of Arabia could stop these endless wars and ensure the rise of agriculture and trade.

The call for the unity of Arabia was clothed in the form of a religious doctrine, which received the name of Wahhabism after its founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. This doctrine, preserving the entire dogma of Islam, emphasized the principle of monotheism, severely condemned local and tribal cults of saints, remnants of fetishism, corruption of morals, and demanded the return of Islam to its "original purity." To a large extent, it was directed against the "apostates from Islam" - the Turkish conquerors who captured the Hijaz, Syria, Iraq and other Arab countries.

Similar religious teachings arose among Muslims before. In Najd itself, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab had predecessors. However, his activities went far beyond religious preaching. From the middle of the XVIII century. Wahhabism was recognized as the official religion of the principality of Dareya, whose emirs Muhammad ibn Saud (1747-1765) and his son Abd-al-Aziz (1765-1803), relying on the union of Wahhabi tribes, demanded from other tribes and principalities of Najd under threat " holy war and the death of accepting the Wahhabi creed and joining the Saudi state.

For 40 years, there were continuous wars in the country. Principalities and tribes, forcibly annexed by the Wahhabis, more than once raised uprisings and renounced the new faith, but these uprisings were severely suppressed.

The struggle for the unification of Arabia stemmed not only from the objective needs of economic development. The accession of new territories increased the income and power of the Saudi dynasty, and military booty enriched the "fighters for a just cause", and the share of the emir accounted for one fifth of it.

By the end of the 80s of the XVIII century. all of Najd was united under the rule of the Wahhabi feudal nobility, headed by the emir Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud. However, government in this state was not centralized. Power over individual tribes remained in the hands of the former feudal leaders, provided that they recognized themselves as vassals of the emir and received Wahhabi preachers.

Subsequently, the Wahhabis went beyond the borders of Inner Arabia to spread their power and faith in other Arab countries. At the very end of the XVIII century. they launched the first raids on the Hijaz and Iraq, which opened the way for the further rise of the Wahhabi state.

Arab culture in the XVII-XVIII centuries.

The Turkish conquest led to the decline of Arab culture, which continued during the 17th-18th centuries. Science during this period developed very poorly. Philosophers, historians, geographers, and jurists mostly expounded and rewrote the works of medieval authors. At the level of the Middle Ages, medicine, astronomy, and mathematics froze. Experimental methods for studying nature were not known. Poetry dominated religious motives. Mystical dervish literature was widely distributed.

In Western bourgeois historiography, the decline of Arab culture is usually attributed to the dominance of Islam. In fact, the main reason for the decline was the extremely slow pace of socio-economic development and Turkish oppression. As for Islamic dogma, which undoubtedly played a negative role, the Christian dogmas professed in a number of Arab countries had no less reactionary influence. The religious disunity of the Arabs, divided into a number of religious groups - especially in Syria and Lebanon, led to cultural disunity. Every cultural movement has inevitably taken on a religious imprint. In the 17th century a college for Lebanese Arabs was founded in Rome, but it was entirely in the hands of the Maronite clergy (Maronites are Christian Arabs who recognize the spiritual authority of the pope) and its influence was limited to a narrow circle of the Maronite intelligentsia. The same religious character, limited by the framework of Maronite propaganda, was carried out by the educational activity of the Maronite Bishop Herman Farhat, who founded in the early 18th century. the library in Aleppo (Haleb); the Maronite school, founded in the 18th century, was distinguished by the same features. at the monastery of Ain Barka (Lebanon), and an Arabic printing house founded at this monastery. Theology was the main subject of study at the school; The printing house printed only religious books.

In the 17th century Patriarch Macarius of Antioch and his son Paul of Aleppo made a trip to Russia and Georgia. The descriptions of this journey, compiled by Paul of Aleppo, can be compared in terms of the brightness of observations and the artistry of style with the best monuments of classical Arabic geographical literature. But these works were known only in narrow circle Orthodox Arabs, mainly among the clergy.

At the beginning of the XVIII century. The first printing house was founded in Istanbul. On the Arabic it printed only Muslim religious books - the Koran, hadiths, commentaries, etc. The cultural center of the Muslim Arabs was still the theological university al-Azhar in Cairo.

However, even during this period, historical and geographical works containing original material. In the 17th century the historian al-Makkari created an interesting work on the history of Andalusia; the Damascus judge Ibn Khallikan compiled an extensive collection of biographies; in the 18th century the chronicle of the Shihabs was written - the most important source on the history of Lebanon during this period. Other chronicles were created on the history of the Arab countries in the 17th-18th centuries, as well as descriptions of travels to Mecca, Istanbul and other places.

Centuries-old Arab art folk craftsmen still manifested itself in remarkable architectural monuments and in artistic and handicraft products. This is evidenced by the Azma Palace in Damascus, built in the 18th century, the remarkable architectural ensembles of the Moroccan capital Meknes, erected at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, many monuments in Cairo, Tunisia, Tlemcen, Aleppo and other Arab cultural centers.