Ottoman Empire - the kingdom of justice and tolerance
The brilliant Port has become the first multi-national state in the world
For almost five centuries, Turkey was the number one enemy of Muscovy and the Russian Empire. From 1568 to 1918, these countries conducted 13 major wars, of which only two — the Prut campaign of 1710 – 1711 and the Crimean War — were lost by the Russians. Moreover, from the beginning of the 16th century to the 1769 year, Russia reflected the regular, often annual, raids of the Tatars - vassals of the Ottoman Empire. And from the beginning of the XIX century to the year 1864, Russian troops fought continuous battles with the mountaineers of the Caucasus, who were supported by Turkey - with money, weapons and military instructors.
Under Tsarism, everyone, from Westerners to Slavophiles, reviled the Ottomans, considering them wild barbarians, unworthy of existence in the civilized world. Soviet historians also added a “class view”: “The Turkish state took shape as a military-feudal, predatory state; the terrorist regime established by the conquerors fixed all the worst sides of the feudal system for a long time. ”
CREDIT CROSS HALLS
The Ottoman Empire owes its birth to ... crusades. For a long time in Russia, the Crusaders were portrayed as noble, albeit naive knights, sacrificing well-being and lives for the sake of their convictions. Alas, the crusades were not a movement of humanists who wanted the liberation of the oppressed peoples from the barbarians who were infatuated, but, on the contrary, the invasion of ignorant, savage robbers into Arab countries whose culture and science had been ahead of the West by several centuries.
The overwhelming majority of the population of Europe and America is convinced that Byzantium perished under the blows of the Turks. Alas, the cause of the death of the second Rome was the fourth crusade, during which in 1204, the Western European knights stormed Constantinople.
In the same year, 1204, the Crusaders in the part of the territory of the Byzantine Empire founded the so-called Latin Empire with its capital in Constantinople. Russian principalities did not recognize this state. The Russians considered the emperor of the Nicene empire (based in Asia Minor) to be the legitimate ruler of Constantinople. Russian metropolitans continued to submit to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who lived in Nicea.
In 1261, the Nicene emperor Michael Paleologue threw the crusaders out of Constantinople and restored the Byzantine empire. Alas, it was not an empire, but only its pale shadow. In the empire, as in the colony, the Genoese ruled. Incidentally, they colonized the entire Black Sea coast from the mouth of the Danube to Batum. The weakness of the Byzantine Empire was exacerbated by internal instability. The agony of the second Rome came, and the only question was who would be the heir.
Soon, the Crusaders lost all enclaves in Asia. In 1268, the Egyptian sultan conquered Antioch, in 1289, in Tripoli, in 1291, in the last crusade fortress in the East, Acre. King of Jerusalem moved to the island of Cyprus. The Venetians seized two dozen of the islands of the Aegean Sea, the island of Crete, the Ionian Islands, as well as the strategically important fortresses on the Peloponnese - Coron and Modon.
In 1492, the Reconquest ended, that is, the war of Castile, Aragon and Portugal against the Moors in Spain. The last enclave of the Moors collapsed - the Emirate of Granada. And even earlier, in 1479, the unification of Castile and Aragon into the Spanish kingdom took place.
Alas, neither the Portuguese nor the Spanish knighthood satisfied the ousting of the Moors from the Iberian Peninsula. They needed new lands, money and slaves. At first, this could only give an invasion of North Africa. In the second half of the 15th century, the Portuguese captured most of Morocco.
But the main areas of expansion of Portugal were the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Official Soviet historians explained Portugal as the following: “By the end of the 15th century, due to the Turkish conquests, the main flow of Eastern goods to Europe and European goods went to Asia through Alexandria.
The Arabs were the only resellers, and the Europeans overpaid them in 8 – 10 times more expensive than the price of oriental goods on the spot. ”
As you can see, here, and in many domestic and Western publications, it is alleged that the Turks allegedly blocked the "main flow of Eastern goods to Europe." It’s impossible to call it a blatant lie. Here I take in hand "Atlas stories Middle Ages ", on the pages 17 – 18" The economic map of Europe and the Middle East in the XI – early XIII centuries. " There are no land (caravan) routes in the western or central part of Asia Minor. All trade was only through the Straits. But, alas, not to Arabia and India, but only to the ports of the Black Sea.
As in the XII century, goods from the Near and Middle East and India went through the ports of Tripoli, Beirut, Akra, Jaffa and Alexandria, and went at the beginning of the XVI century, and later, after the Ottoman conquest.
Has there been an overpayment in 8 – 10 times for land and sea transit? Yes, it did. But the pirates-knights from Cyprus and Rhodes, as well as Venetian pirates from Crete and other islands are to blame here.
And so Vasco da Gama arrives in India in May 1498. After that, the Portuguese energetically began to master the Indian Ocean and began every year to send there large squadrons, sometimes to 20 ships, well armed with artillery, with thousands of sailors and selected soldiers. The Portuguese decided to oust the Arabs from the Indian Ocean and take over all the sea trade there. Due to the superiority of weapons, they succeeded. But the Portuguese became much more brutal exploiters of the population of the coastal regions of India, and later lying further to the east of Malacca and Indonesia. From the Indian princes, the Portuguese demanded the expulsion of the Arabs and the cessation of all trade relations with them. The Portuguese began to attack all the ships they encountered, both Arab and native, to plunder and destroy their teams.
13 February 1502, Vasco da Gama, for the second time goes to the shores of India. Now he has a squadron of 14 ships. Here is just one episode of his sailing off the coast of India, described in the logbook: “At that moment we met a large ship with pilgrims from Mecca, it was heading to Kozhekod. Upon learning of this, the admiral ordered to fire the ship from guns and set it on fire. Then a horrific massacre followed ... Distraught by fear, the Moors seized burning coals and threw them at the Portuguese, and they responded with muskets. ” The shooting of the ship lasted four days. In the end, the surviving Arabs, fleeing the flames, rushed into the sea. “The sea is red with blood. Of the three hundred passengers of the vessel, only twenty children remained alive, whom Don Vasco removed from the burning ship and which our priest baptized this morning. ”
Not content with the Indian Ocean, the Portuguese completely seized control of the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. At strategically important points, they captured the fortress and mercilessly drowned all Muslim ships, good, others were not there.
TURKI-LIBERATORS
So, a terrible danger looms over the Islamic world. The Portuguese appeared in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, the Spaniards, one after another seized the Arab fortresses on the African coast of the Western Mediterranean. And hordes of "redheads" thugs moved from Persia. The eyes of all the Sunnis were turned to Constantinople. Only the Ottomans could save the Islamic world.
Contrary to the opinion of the majority of domestic and Western historians, the Turkish conquests of the 15th – 16th centuries are due primarily to the support of the masses, more precisely, the majority of the population of the relevant region or at least a substantial part of it.
Attempts to give an objective analysis of the successes of the Turks are extremely rare in domestic and foreign literature. So, N.A. Ivanov wrote: “In the XVI century. Ottoman prestige was very high. Both in the East and in the West there were many admirers of the Turks, especially among the oppressed and exploited part of the population. In the Balkans and in Hungary, in Western Europe and Russia, “they were searched for,” in the words of AE Krymsky, “large groups of people who, by virtue of far from identical considerations and sentiments, thought about the imminent potential of the Turkish invasion without horror and conquest, but even directly desired it. "
In the Arab world, a similar pattern was observed. In the Maghreb, peasants and city dwellers perceived the Turks as patrons and saviors. The Tunisian historian Ibn Abu Dinar (XVII century) happily celebrated every victory of the Ottoman weapon. The Arab anonymous author of the 16th century, the compiler of al-Ghazavat, a heroic account of the exploits of the Barbaross brothers, as well as Ottoman Turks in Kabil folk songs appear as defenders of ordinary people, as courageous and skilled warriors who selflessly fought against the enemies of Islam. In Kabyle folklore, the highest measure of praise was a comparison with a Turk. In the East, particularly in Egypt, the same mood prevailed. Over time, they acquired the character of a thoughtless tradition, deeply rooted in the minds of many generations. Even an Egyptian aristocrat historian like Abd ar-Rahman al-Jabarti (1754 – 1825), who hated the Turks with all his heart, paid tribute to this tradition. “In the initial era of their rule,” he wrote, “they [the Ottomans] were the best of those who stood at the head of the ummah after the caliphs, led by the right path.”
Turkicism in the Arab world, as in Europe, was based on the exorbitant idealization of the Ottoman order. In the coming parish of the Ottomans, the people saw the rejection of all the evils and vices inherent in the Eastern Arab feudal society. In contrast to their own rulers, the Ottomans appeared as champions of truth and justice, as defenders of the Shari'ah, to whom Allah confers victory. The taking of Constantinople in 1453 and the further successes of the Turks were due to the divine providence. It was believed that God himself was directing the weapons of the Ottomans.
On the eve of the Ottoman occupation in Cairo, people often talked about prophetic dreams and visions that predicted the death of the Mamluk sultanate. According to popular rumor, Sidi Makhrez himself - the patron saint of the city, who appeared in a dream to Selim II, asked for the capture of Tunisia in 1574. So, the vast majority of Sunni Muslims believed that the Ottomans carry out the will of Allah. Well, to contradict the will of the Most High ...
What the Arab world! There were fantastic rumors about the kingdom of justice among the Ottomans throughout Europe. Even Turkophile publications appeared, to which, I note, the sultans had nothing to do. Thus, the knightly "Turk" from the same-name drama of the XV century poet Hans Rosenplute protects tortured merchants and peasants. He is always on the side of the poor, who by their work fed the gentlemen, “receiving in exchange for this only new burdens”. The Turk promises to "reform and punish the aristocratic world."
A.Ye. Krymskaya wrote that in the works of Ivan Peresvetov, Sultan Mehmed II "was described with love as a type of king who cruelly dealt with unrighteous grandees, but with his cruelty to them he introduces universal justice into his land". Peresvetov is delighted with Mehmed II, who ordered alive to tear off the skin from negligent and deceptive judges, writing on which: “Without such thunderstorms, you cannot enter the realm of truth.”
And the first utopian socialist Tommaso Campanella (1568 – 1639) advised in every way to imitate Muslims and “introduce a number of reforms in the Turkish manner.”
Even Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) stated: “Many demand the arrival of the Turks and their management ... I hear that there are people in the German lands who want to come and rule the Turks who want to be under the Turks rather than under the emperor and the princes”.
The sea gezas, who fought with the Spaniards for the freedom of the Netherlands, wore hats with a silver crescent and an embroidered inscription: “Turks are better than dad”. The Greeks on the islands of the Aegean Sea hated the Crusaders for persecuting the Orthodox Church and the terrible exactions and saw the Ottomans of their liberators.
Yes, the Turks destroyed part of the Orthodox churches, but in general in the empire there was religious tolerance towards both Christians and Jews. “In the European communities of the XVI – XVII centuries. there was a real attack of the Ottoman euphoria. The Jews of Europe viewed the Ottoman Empire almost as a paradise on earth. After the fifth Lateran Council (1512 – 1517), Ottoman Turks acted as active patrons of the Reformation. They wholeheartedly "supported the Protestant cause and leadership, wherever it was possible." In their messages (name-and humayun) to the "Lutheran beyami of Flanders and other Spanish possessions" the Ottoman sultans condemned Catholicism, "rejected both by Islam and Lutheranism," and called upon the leaders of the Dutch Gezah to coordinate their actions with Spain’s Moriscs and all those who fights against "dad and his madhhab".
JUSTICE UNDER CONCEPTS
No doubt, in the Ottoman Empire, although there was a peculiar, but nonetheless, feudal system, good, there could be no other economic relations then. But Turkish feudalism can with a certain stretch be called "popular feudalism." Turkish dignitaries were mainly from peasants. And everywhere they presented themselves as defenders of the interests of ordinary workers of the land. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent demanded from his pasha "to treat our subjects so that the peasants of the neighboring principalities envied their fate." Selim I, in conquered Egypt, distributed to the poor meat, freed the fellahs and poor citizens from labor service in favor of the army, placing it on the well-off part of the population. And under his poems, carved from the Cairo nilomer, he signed: "Hadim al-Fukar Selim", that is, "The minister of the poor Selim."
Turks pointedly severely punished for any disrespect for peasant labor. The chronist Bartolomeo Georgievich during the 1533 Persian campaign of the year "saw spahia, who was beheaded along with his horse and servant, because the horse, left without a leash, wandered into someone's field." I will note that even warlords were executed for spoiling the extreme crops of peasant crops in the Ottoman army. So it was during the conquest of Egypt, Hungary and other countries.
For the first time since the time of the Roman Empire, Turkish sultans attempted to create a multinational and multi-religious state. Moreover, this state was to be based not only on strict punishments, but also on the structure of society, which is fair, according to the Turks.
Turks almost cleared the Mediterranean Sea of Christian pirates. They drove the crusaders from Cyprus, Crete, the main pirate nest - Rhodes and dozens of other islands. The Turkish fleet knocked the Portuguese out of the Red Sea. Turkish squadrons went to the shores of India and even Indonesia. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent concluded a treaty of military alliance against Portugal with the Sultan of the Principality of Ace on the island of Sumatra. The Turks set Ace ships and artillery, fleet Ace was commanded by Turkish officers.
Despite a number of victories of the Portuguese in sea battles, the Ottomans seized the Asian and African coasts of the Red Sea dealt a heavy blow to the claims of the Portuguese to the monopoly of trade in exotic goods in the Indian Ocean. The “ancient way of spices” was revived by the Turks in 1550 – 1570. All of Western Europe, with the exception of Spain, Portugal and the western provinces of France, again began to be supplied with spices from the countries of the Arab East, which now became part of the Ottoman Empire. The French historian F. Brodel wrote: “As many peppers and spices have come in the Red Sea as there have never been before.” Thus, in the 1554 – 1564 years, the Turks, through their Red Sea ports, imported into Europe along the 20 – 40 thousands of centners of spices per year. And only in the 70 of the XVI century, the Portuguese were able to somewhat improve their position.
In Europe, the name of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520 – 1566) was associated with successful campaigns to Venice, Austria, the Western Mediterranean, Persia, etc. But the Turks themselves called him Kanuni - Legislator.
The French traveler, after the death of Suleiman, wrote: “The Turks are in all such lovers of order that they observe it in trifles. Since economics and product distribution constitute one of the bases for maintaining order, they pay special attention to this, making sure that there are many products and they are distributed in a reasonable proportion. They will never sell cherries or first-class fruit worth their weight in gold, as is done in France ... If their wardens who make daily rounds find a merchant weighing buyers or selling their goods at an inflated price, they will immediately be punished or delivered to court. Therefore, there even a child can be sent to the market without fear of being deceived. Often, the wardens of the market, meeting a child, ask him for what price he bought the goods. They even weigh them to see if the child has been deceived. I saw a merchant who hit his heels for selling ice five dinars a pound ... A merchant who hangs around a buyer may be dishonored by sticking his head into the hole in the board hung with bells. Over the merchant in this form, all around laugh. "
I note that Islam forbade the faithful to engage in usury, and Kanuni strictly followed this. However, the Sultan allowed Christians to engage in usury and various financial transactions. Therefore, already in the XVI – XVII centuries, a number of Greek and Armenian clans made a huge fortune for themselves.
Of course, fierce executions were used in Turkey. But let's not forget that there was the 16th century in the courtyard - the century of the oprichnina, St. Bartholomew's night, auto-da-fe in Spain and the Netherlands, etc. And if we compare Turkish legislation not with the modern “liberal” right, but with the laws or, more precisely, the lawlessness that the western and northern neighbors of the Ottoman Empire practiced, then Turkey under Suleiman Kanuni seems to be a state of law and, I’m not afraid to say, an oasis of justice in Europe and Asia.
Proud Slaves of Sultan
Important state posts in the Ottoman Empire were received not because of titles, but because of merit and intelligence. European leaders were amazed at such a rapid flourishing of the Ottoman Empire and wanted to know the reason for such success. “Do you mean a simple shepherd can become a grand vizier?” - exclaimed the Venetian Senate, when the ambassador told them what was happening in the empire, where everyone was proud that he was a slave to the sultan. - A high state person of low descent? Is the power of Islam growing at the expense of second-class people baptized and raised by Christians? Incredible! ”Indeed. The eight great viziers of Suleiman were Christians and were brought to Turkey by slaves.
In the XV – XVII centuries, the Ottoman Empire was the only large state in the world in which full tolerance was established in peacetime, and people of any denomination could not only freely use their faith, but also had the opportunity to own land, a flotilla of merchant ships, a bank, and more. .P. The administration of the Gentiles in the Ottoman Empire was conducted mostly not directly, but through the leadership of their confessions. Take, for example, one of the main accusations made against the Turks: "blood tax", that is, the selection of Christian boys to schools that prepared janissaries and officials. So the process was not led by the sultan's officials, but by the Greek priests. The funny thing is that they sometimes took bribes from Muslims to their children, writing in the Christians, sent to learn.
Imagine for a moment the Russian village, not even in the XVI, but in the XVIII century. An official from Petersburg arrives to select the children of the serfs in the Guards military school or in the Lyceum. The crowd would immediately run together, and the case would inevitably end in a fight between the parents of the applicants.
No domestic author attempted to compare the position of the peasants (Muslims or Christians) in the Ottoman Empire in the 16th – 17th centuries and the peasants in France, the Commonwealth and Russia. What were their rights and how many gentlemen and the state were taken from them? Alas, everywhere is a comparison in favor of the Turks. There is evidence of contemporaries that the peasants of many German, Hungarian and Polish lands were waiting for the arrival of the Turks. In 1668, hetman Peter Doroshenko surrendered with most of the Little Russia under the rule of Sultan Mehmed IV. Only in September 1683, after the defeat of the Turkish troops near Vienna, did Mehmed IV relinquish power over Little Russia. And then the orange ones in 2018 in Kiev would solemnly celebrate the 350 anniversary of the “reunification of the Ukrainian people with the great Turkish”.
Well, in the 1708 year, many thousands of Don Cossacks, led by ataman Ignat Nekrasov, went under the auspices of the Turkish sultan, fleeing from the massacre arranged by Peter's warlords. Almost simultaneously and for the same reasons, the Zaporozhian Army almost completely went to the Turks. In 1733, Anna Ioannovna allowed the Cossacks to return to Russia. But in 1775, Catherine II defeated the Zaporizhian Sich, and again a significant part of the Cossacks moved to the sultan. I note that both the Nekrasovs and the Cossacks received fertile lands in Turkey, and no one forced them to change their faith or customs.
What killed the Great Ottoman Empire? The degradation of rulers, corruption and separatism of officials, as well as aggression from the west and east. It is curious that the Turks themselves claim that the empire was destroyed by a woman - Hurum - the beloved wife of Suleiman the Magnificent, better known in Europe under the name of Roksolana.
Prior to this, the Turkish sultans were warriors and visited the harem (a detached palace) for only a few hours to get pleasure. But in 1541, Suleiman the Magnificent moved Horam to his palace. Huram slandered the eldest son Suleiman Mustafa, and his father executed him in anger. After Suleiman, the son Hurum came to the throne - the harem hermit and drunk Selim II.
Since then, the harem has ceased to be only a place of pleasure, and has become part of the Sultan's palace, where the lord and his wife lived. From the warriors, the sultans turned into hermits, constantly living in a harem.
In my opinion, the bureaucracy did much more harm to the empire. Before Suleiman the Magnificent, all major local officials were appointed by the Sultan. Over time, the governors of remote regions became rich and began to seek from Constantinople the transfer of power to their children. Thus, North Africa, Egypt, and a number of other regions in the east of the empire gradually turned from integral parts of a unitary state into semi-independent territories with weak ties to the metropolis. Well, after three centuries, France seized Algeria and Tunisia, Italy - Libya, England - Egypt, and it went away ...
TURKEY, RUSSIA AND THE RESTRUCTORS
The wars of Russia and Turkey are the result of the short-sightedness of the rulers of both countries, who misjudged the situation both in the region and in the world. Russia could not tolerate the raids of the Crimean brigands and could not develop without access to the Black and Mediterranean seas. The Turkish government equally rightly wished to preserve the security of the country in the north and in the Balkans.
The situation could only be tackled by a military alliance between the two powers, in which Russia would guarantee the inviolability of all the borders of the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey - the free passage of Russian trade and military ships through the straits and a reliable guarantee against penetration into the Black Sea of any foreign fleet. If necessary, Russia should have the right to build fortresses in the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.
The desire of our kings to expel the Turks from Europe prevailed. The rulers of the West were of the same opinion, but they wanted to do this without strengthening Russia, but on the contrary, trying to bring maximum harm to it.
I am afraid that someone will accuse the author of turkofilii, so, they say, Shirokorad does not write about the atrocities of the Ottomans in the XIX – XX centuries. Indeed, during these two centuries, millions of Greeks, Armenians and Turks became victims of interethnic and interfaith conflicts, unleashed by the fault of the West and native nationalists.
Here is a typical example - the famous Chios Island massacre in 1822. 10 March 1822 th 2500 Greek pirates from the island of Samos landed in the bay of Megas on the island of Chios, where previously there were no ethnic or religious clashes. Pirates and local Greek lumpen massacred the Turks. Well, March 24 Turkish squadron came with troops, and at the same time returned several thousand Turks, who fled from the island to the mainland, crossing the strait width 5 km. And the massacre began again, but this time the Greeks.
I will note that five hundred "infidel" Zaporozhian Cossacks frolicked at Chios under the command of the ataman Semyon Moroz and the military foreman Loha. By the way, Frost is a native of Kiev, and Lough is a noble Polish gentry, a native of the Right Bank. In the battle of Chios, the cat-fiend and folded his lush head.
The events on Chios caused a huge resonance and a wave of philoellism in Europe. They claimed that the Turks killed about 20 thousand islanders and rebels from other islands. Well, how many Turks were killed by the corsairs and the local mob, it was simply not accepted to speak. Yes, in fact, the reaction of the West to various conflicts over the years 300 practically has not changed. Recall the assessment by Western media of Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia in 2008 or the civil war in Libya in 2011.
Information