Ottoman Land System

OTTOMAN LAND SYSTEM

The economic fundamental structure of the historical times was agriculture and small craftsmanship. The financial system was mainly focused on the land distribution and taxation over it. As it is known that Ottoman Empire was such good example of historical empires were depended on farming economy of its times. By looking at the Ottoman Empire, we could find interesting facts about the success of the financial organization and maintain the power of the empire for big areas and longer term in the history. The successful administration of land was the key factor of effective financial power of the empires that are depended on farming. There were other economical movements in the empire naturally, but the main economic structure was based on agriculture and as a result, the financial power of the empire was come from taxation of farming.


It is known that the economy of the Ottoman Empire was mainly based on farming. Ottomans were not involved in trading and merchandise especially in the first eras of the empire. The trade of the empire was usually held by the minorities that were in the land before the conquest already. Instead, the Ottoman economic policy was based on war and conquering new lands. Until the Turks started to develop and involve themselves in other areas, their wealth was dependant on the land system and successful military conquests. The prolonged existence of the Ottoman Empire was mostly charged on its economic on farming and military systems. As it is known that Ottoman regime, divide people into two group, one group is rulers side, Askeri. Other group is Reaya, it means people. Askeri class was performed military and administrative of the empire all around the lands. They were like the representative of the Sultan in the periphery. They were not in the situation that they give taxes, but the ones who collect taxes can be counted as Askeri class people. The second group, called Reaya, contains peasants, merchants, artisans and they were the productive part of the population and they were under the taxation in the empire ruling. Ottoman peasants were the part of Reaya class and the importance of farming made them the most paying taxes as sources of the empire all the years.

Ottoman land system was one of these systems and addressed both the economy and the military of the Empire. We can set the land system into a wider context of landholding and property law as one way to show this. The Ottomans recognized two kinds of real property:

1) "Miri" or state land consisted of all arable farm land and pastures. It belonged to God and therefore to the sultan as God's agent, unless granted to someone's use. The state also owned forest lands, mountains and public areas such as roadways and market places. Land without heirs reverted to the sultan as "Miri" (Has, Zeamet, Tımar lands under this context) and it has one more different term in this land type, that is called "Vakf" land was tax-exempt property devoted to religious purposes or the support of institutions of public welfare in the area, Inalcik says that "Commercial facilities-Bazaars, Shops, Bathhouses, Bedestans were built under the Vakf system as a source of income to support the religious and charitable complexes" (Inalcik 1994-80).

2) "Mulk" land was true private property. Legally, it consisted of the land occupied by people's houses, or by gardens, vineyards and orchards -- property improved by the owners. It was private ownership with having rights on the land by no limitation as the Miri lands have. In essence, when Timar land was converted to private status it illegally became Mulk land. Mulk property was exempt from state control: the state could no longer demand military from the land owners like the Timar system provides that. Actually this type of lands were just like very tiny part of the whole land, also they were not usable for efficient farming on the areas.

Miri lands were divided two firstly, Vakf and Tımar lands. Vakf lands were for the public welfare and religious purposes and it has own rules instead of being the lands of sultan. That is the main point that there is a difference between Vakf and other Miri lands. It was also used by some people who have lands other Miri types. That would mean Sultan have only right to control over the land, so it could lead the heritance problem for the people who have it actually in their lives, but it could not be no longer their families after they would be gone from this world life. As a tax cut, some landholders contrived to place their land into Vakf status by creating fake foundations and also for the support of their heirs, because it could not touched by Sultan after it is being a Vakf lands. (This was one way to make public land essentially private). The decision of this land would not be made by the sultan himself. Thus, the people were feeling that the Vakf type of lands could be better for their next generations, because the sultans would not have that kind of rights over the lands of Vakfs. As they surely have for other types of Miri areas.

When we looked at the Miri lands that are owned by Sultan himself, It was like most of the lands, can be considered as %90 or more. Inalcik says that It is not Ottoman invention to state ownership on conquered lands. He claims that "In Islamic jurisprudence, ownership of the land was based in the last analysis on the concept of the conquest and the right of Islamic community as God’s trustees" (Inalcik 1994-103) It makes the conquered lands common property of Islamic society or the state itself. Otherwise, Ottoman were using combination of Islamic and local practices related to Roman-Byzantine legacy. Moreover, there was no other solution for the land distribution because the huge areas they have after the conquest in short time of period especially for the historical view of empires. It was not possible for the Central Government to manage all the lands owned by the Ottoman Empire. Not only it would require a lot of organizations, but it would also be an inefficient way of working the land. Therefore the government gave (or loaned) land to certain people. These people were called Reaya and were expected to work the land and pay a certain amount of their income as tax. Ottoman administration on the taxation using recording, it is like Ottoman Empire surveyed all taxable sources and activities and recorded the information in tax registers, it is known as "tahrir defterleri"

Padishahs began to exchange the right to collect the tax given by the Reaya after the establishment of state and especially after Mehmed I, in return for certain services, preferably military. The people who were given this privilege were called Timariots (Timar holders). These tax collectors did not own the land, and the Reaya were not their slaves. Inalcik tells that "In fact, the conquerors could not take the place of indigenous peasant tenants; but leaving them to continue to cultivate, they acted as simply as ‘rent’ gatherers" (Inalcik 1994-104) Instead of land, they owned the rights to collect the taxes, and in exchange for this income, they had to support the army with a number of cavalrymen, called the Sipahis. The number of troops they needed to supply depended on the amount of income the Timars provided. As a result of this system, the Government was able to efficiently manage the economy, and call upon an army of Timarli Sipahis when needed.

On the other hand, it would be wrong to search for the roots of the Timar system in feudal Europe for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that in the feudal system the peasants are literally slaves of the landowning class. In the Timar system, the Timariots, unlike the landowners in feudalism do not own the land, only the right to collect the tax from the Reaya. The people on the other hand are not slaves of the Timariots, but free people who have rented the land in exchange for paying tax. As Inalcik says that "Timar holders had police authority to pursue and arrest wrong doers within their territories. However they could not enforce penalties until they received a verdict from a local judge with accordance to imperial law." (Inalcik 1994-114) Actually their duty was protecting the people and the rights of peasants who were assigned to them in their Timar territory and to join imperial army during campaigns when called. Another difference is that feudal landowners have a political power over their land. They are able to apply their own law, and assemble their own force. With this force they can even fight against the king. Therefore in a feudal system the power is not central, but consists of many small units. The same thing cannot be said in the Ottoman Empire. The central rule is absolute, and the Sipahis are forces of the Sultan, not the Timariots. As Inalcik claims: "Their duties were protecting peasants and persons in their territory and to rejoin the imperial army during campaigns. The Sultan gave Sipahis vineyards and a meadow which would take care of their families, retainers and horses needs" (Inalcik 1994-115) The Tımar holders were just like representative of the Sultan on the land or taking their wage by the taxation over the land, one of the main conditions imposed by the state was that a Timar holder did not own the land; land ownership was held by the Ottoman state that is Sultan himself. Tımar was the idea of controlling the huge areas under the central Ottoman power and also making the farming the most efficient as it can be possible by that system.

Instead of feudalism, the roots of this system can be found in previous Islamic countries, under the name of Ikta system. In the Islam law one type of land is owned by the government to use or give to certain high-ranking people. These people would pay tax to the government in return. This tradition was adopted by the Seljuks before the Ottoman Empire. The lands were called Ikta, and were very similar to Timars. As a result it is possible to mention that the Ikta system was a previous version of the Timar system. Later on the Ottomans used this system to create a massive military force, converting it to the Timar System. On the other hand, although elements of the Timar system can be traced back to the beginnings of Ottoman history, it was not until the re-emergence of the empire under Mehmed I in 1413 that a tenure system that was distinctly Timar was developed. Before the collapse of the empire by Timur in 1402, Bayezid had granted quasi-Timar holdings to his own slaves. "With the reunification of the Ottoman lands under a Sultan after Timur Empire went away, these men would once again have legal title to their holdings. Over the next fifty years this system of land tenure was largely expanded and standardized. After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottoman turned once more to the familiar policy of expansion through conquest." (Inalcik 1954)


The Timar system meant that the farming income of the government was in the hands of the Reaya. If the Reaya stopped working the land, the economy would be damaged. To prevent this, if a Timar was not harvested for a certain period of time (usually three years) the Reaya and the Timar Holders would be replaced by law. The only exception was when the land was being rested, and during this period the Reaya would not be expected to plant any crops. In order to help the Reaya during this period, the Tımar Owners would not collect tax. The law meant that the Timar had to be worked as efficiently as possible, contributing greatly to the economy of the Empire. The Ottoman Land system was very useful for its time because of that, especially the registers were kept regularly on this issue is our important sources for that time of the history. As Oktay Ozel says that "This system of land tenure lasted roughly from the fourteenth century through to the sixteenth century. The goals of the system were necessitated by financial, state and expansionist purposes. The financial aims of the system were to relieve pressure from the Ottoman state of paying the army as well as to gain a new source of revenue for the central treasury"(Ozel 1999) It could also lead removal of old feudal system of those lands and bring central power of the Ottoman Empire to new conquered lands.

The Timar lands were differed in sizes, and were categorized into three groups determined by the amount of income they provided. If a Timar’s yearly income exceeded 100.000 akce the timar would be called Has and it would usually be given to Sultans, Beys, Viziers or Princes. Timars that had a yearly income between 20.000 and 100.000 akce were called Zeamet, and these were given to high-ranking officials who are called as Zaims. The rest were simply called Timars. In times of war, each Timarli Sipahi was supposed to bring one soldier armed and mounted for each 3000 Akce (Ottoman Silver Coin) income. For the Zeamet and has sipahis this amount would be 5000 akce. In the best times of the Ottoman Empire, the army could call up to 100.000 cavalrymen. On the other hand, the gaining of Tımar was from the way of conquering new lands so it was one of the reasons of soldiers to be able to be more attracted to fighting in wars. As Inalcik claims that "Along with the central bureaucracy’s interest in acquiring Mukaata (The revenues of the Empire economy) from foreign conquests, there was pressure from the lower ranks of soldiery to gain Tımar benefits in the conquered lands. This pressure also become powerful factor in maintaining of conquest policy and can be considered as a part of Ottoman fiscalism." (Inalcik 1994-72) It is very important to mention that an empire run by such system would inevitably depend on war. In order to have a larger economy and military, the Ottomans needed to conquer more land. As more territories were controlled by the government, more Timars could be loaned. This meant more farming income and more cavalrymen

When a Timariot died, his eldest son would be given the choice to replace the father. Otherwise, the land would be given to another person, usually someone loyal to the Sultan. This way the quality and the loyalty of the Timariots were kept at a maximum. The system also contributed to the preservation of the throne. It shows that the inheritance of Tımar lands is not like private property ownership, but instead it is like granted wage contribution from the land taxation for the Tımar owners.

In conclusion, Ottoman Empire had to use such a system to be able to control and get efficient production at the same time. The ownership of the land were mostly by the Sultan himself, that did not mean the having the every money that it could be made from the land, but it is like a on the book and it would provide the people work and be careful about the lands by the thought of it is state ownership. Actually the local people would not understand that in their daily lives, exception of the paying taxes as they were always doing. However, if we would look at the situation as the big picture, it is important to mention that Ottoman Empire was using tax collection as the wage for Askeri class people, because they are like the officers work for the state and they should be paid as much as they could feel as ruler part of the society. Otherwise, the peasants were productive part of the population, they product and earn their own money under the protection of the Ottoman Empire, that means they should pay taxes because of that in the mind of Ottoman thinking. Ottoman tax system was not worse than the previous taxation on the lands. However, it could be seen as unfair from the mind of contemporary world view. Till the abolishing of the system because of many reason that is related with developments and modernization that Ottoman could not reach, It was very useful land distrubition all around the state borders.



Works Cited:

Halil Inalcik, Ottoman Methods of conquest, Studia Islamica. 2 (1954), 106
Halil Inalcik, An Economic and Social history of the Ottoman Empire 1300- 1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1994) 72-80-114-115
Oktay Ozel, Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II’s ‘Land Reform’ Revised, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 42 (1999), 234