[277] D. Barbarigo, 30-33.
[278] Menavino, 128.
[279] The cause of the execution of Junis Pasha by Selim I. Cf. Hammer, Geschichte, ii. 524.
[280] Halil Ganem, i. 169.
[281] Busbecq, Life and Letters, i. 322.
[282] Cahun, Introduction, p. vii: “Les Turcs et les Mongols ... nées de la guerre et organisées pour la conquête.”
[283] This was true even in D’Ohsson’s time (vii. 399).
[284] Hammer, Staatsverwaltung, 181.
[285] Curiously enough, the oldest sense in which the Turkish word kul was used as a term denoting relation to a prince, was in reference to soldiers (Vambéry, Uigurische Sprachmonumente und das Kudalku Bilik, 113, stanza 12b). At that time the word was applied to the foot-soldiers as distinguished from the cavalry, who were then volunteer knights. This usage survived in the Ottoman system to the extent that the regular infantry, including the Janissaries, artillerymen, and other lesser permanent corps, were regarded as in a particular and special sense the sultan’s kullar (D’Ohsson, vii. 328; Djevad Bey, i. 15-18).
[286] The Bostanjis, or gardeners, and other Ajem-oghlans of the palace service were not left behind: D’Ohsson, vii. 326; Djevad Bey, i. 7.
[287] Extended accounts of the Janissaries may be found in D’Ohsson, vii. 310 ff.; Hammer, Staatsverwaltung, 192 ff.; Zinkeisen, iii. 201 ff.; Djevad Bey, vol. i, book i.
[288] For an example of the persistence of this idea, see Bérard (1909), 12-13: “La Turquie désormais subsiste par le janissaire et doit vivre pour le janissaire d’abord ... depuis la prise de Rhodes (1522) jusqu’à l’apparition de la flotte russe aux Dardanelles (1770), tant vaut le janissaire et tant vaut l’empire.” Professor A. C. Coolidge suggests that the hold which this remarkable organization had upon the imagination of fellow-countrymen as well as of foreigners was in part “due to the fact that in almost all Oriental history good infantrymen have been extremely rare, and the Janissaries were the only good infantrymen in the Ottoman Empire.” It is also true that the Janissaries were that group within the Moslem fold which came least under the taming and subordinating influence of the system; they were a frontier province of Islamic society. When in the seventeenth century they ceased to be drawn directly from the Christian population and became a variety of military aristocracy, not only did they remain in part a fighting infantry, but their original freedom of spirit and action was by no means abandoned.
[289] D’Ohsson, vii. 359-360; Hammer, Geschichte, ii. 251, 361, iii. 45; Nicolay, 89.
[290] Rhodes was pillaged after capitulation (1521), and so were Ofen (1529), and Wychegrad (1544): Hammer, Geschichte, iii. 28, 83, 263.
[291] Ibid. ii. 252. Hence the death of a sultan was kept concealed until his successor had assumed power (ibid. 535; iii. 449).
[292] Mohammed II gave them ten purses of gold (1451), ibid. i. 504; Bayezid II gave them 2000 aspers each (1481), ibid. ii. 252; Selim I gave them 3000 aspers each (1512), ibid. 382; from Suleiman they asked 5000 aspers each, which he compounded by giving them one-third in cash and increased pay (1520), ibid. iii. 6.
[293] Before Vienna (1529), ibid. 88; on march toward Persia (1534), ibid. 148; at Tabriz (1535), ibid. 158.
[294] This usage dates from Suleiman; D’Ohsson, vii. 354.
[295] Busbecq, Life and Letters, i. 86: the Janissaries “are scattered through every part of the empire, either to garrison the forts against the enemy, or to protect the Christians and Jews from the violence of the mob. There is no district with any considerable amount of population, no borough or city, which has not a detachment of Janissaries to protect the Christians, Jews, and other helpless people from outrage and wrong.” Janissaries might be detailed to attend on foreign ambassadors, or to escort foreign travelers within the empire (Knolles, ed. 1687, p. 985).
[296] Nicolay, 89, was perhaps the first to point out the likeness of the Janissaries to the Roman Pretorian Guard, and to see in them a great danger to the Ottoman Empire.
[297] Hammer, Geschichte, ii. 420, 520.
[298] Ibid. iii. 88.
[299] Trevisano, 129, says that they had sufficient authority on the death of a sultan to give the empire to which of his sons they pleased. Cf. J. Soranzo, 248; Morosini, 255; Garzoni, 432; Knolles (ed. 1687), 985 (“neither can any of the Turks Sultans account themselves fully invested in the Imperial Dignity, or assured of their Estate, until they be by them approved and proclaimed”).
[300] D’Ohsson, i. 278-284; Heidborn, 120.
[301] D’Ohsson, i. 284. This rule is sometimes stated erroneously as an old Turkish custom, a provision of Mohammedan law, or an old Ottoman law or custom.
[302] Hammer, Staatsverfassung, 98: “Kanun of the Security of the Throne: The majority of Legists (Ulema) have declared it allowable, that whoever among my illustrious children and grandchildren may come to the throne, should, for securing the peace of the world, order his brothers to be executed. Let them hereafter act accordingly.”
[303] Hammer, Geschichte, ii. 352 ff.
[304] Menavino, 219; Trevisano, 129; Hammer, Geschichte, ii. 365.
[305] Hammer, Geschichte, iii. 314.
[306] Busbecq, Life and Letters, i. 185-189.
[307] Postel, iii. 87, says, about 1537: Suleiman “has among others a son named Mustapha, marvelously well educated and prudent and of the age to reign; for he is 23 or 24 years old; and God grant that so great an atrocity may not come so near us (Dieu ne permette qu’une Barbarie si grande vienne si pres de nous).”
[308] 10,000 is the number according to Bragadino, 106. 12,000 is given by almost all contemporaries: Ramberti, below, p. 249; Junis Bey, below, p. 266; Giovio, Commentarius, 76; Geuffroy, 234; Navagero, 53; Trevisano, 128; Barbaro, 305; Postel, iii. 30; Busbecq, Life and Letters, i. 86; Nicolay, 88; Erizzo, 127. Navagero, 56, says some think that 15,500 or 16,000 were inscribed; and Garzoni, 416, says that there were 13,000 or 14,000. Djevad Bey, i. 90, gives 12,000 in 1523, and 13,599 in 1574. In 1564 D. Barbarigo, 33, gives a precise number, 13,502. D’Ohsson, vii. 330, says, without stating any authority and against the above contemporary evidence, that Suleiman raised the number to 40,000. Hammer (Geschichte, i. 95, and iii. 473) says, referring to D’Ohsson, that Suleiman had 20,000; but in his Staatsverwaltung, 195, he states that Suleiman had only 12,000 before Szigets. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 990) says, about 1603, that the Janissaries numbered not over 12,000 to 14,000.
[309] Junis Bey, 272, and Ludovisi, 17, give the number of this garrison as 3000. Postel, 38, gives the number as 30,000; this must include the Mamelukes.
[310] Giovio, Commentarius, 77: about 6000 of the older of them stay about the Prince. Navagero, 55: 8000 to 10,000 are always ready.
[312] Hammer, Staatsverwaltung, 194; Ricaut, 365 (mentions 162 odalar); Djevad Bey, i. 28. In Chalcocondyles’s time (1465), 97, the strength of each oda seems to have been of 50 men. In Suleiman’s time it was less than 100. Later it became much larger.
[313] Nicolay, 96-97; D’Ohsson, vii. 313-320; Hammer, Staatsverwaltung, 201 ff.; Djevad Bey, i. 35, 45.
[314] D’Ohsson, vii. 314; Hammer, Geschichte, ii. 428. This was the case only from 1515 to 1582.
[315] Kiaya is a word which offered infinite difficulties of pronunciation and spelling; for example, gachaia, cacaia, checaya, quaia, queaya, caia, cahaia, chiccaia, chechessi. Some authors employ a different spelling each time they use the word. Trevisano, 118, gives chietcudasci. Kiaya represents the popular pronunciation. The more nearly correct form of the word, following the Turkish spelling, is ketkhuda.
[316] D’Ohsson, vii. 353.
[317] Djevad Bey, i. 35.
[319] Ludovisi (1534), 9, gives a pessimistic account of them; according to him, they had not the order or the discipline or the astuteness which was found in the Christian infantry. Postel, iii. 30, praises them greatly for order, frugality, and temperance. Djevad Bey, i. 56-64, gives a favorable description; he says (p. 56) that the first of their fundamental laws enjoined absolute obedience.
[320] Postel, iii. 31; D’Ohsson, vii. 353; Djevad Bey, i. 66, 69.
[321] Busbecq, Life and Letters, i. 296.
[322] D’Ohsson, vii. 351; Djevad Bey, i. 56-59.
[324] Djevad Bey, i. 289.
[325] This name for the sultan’s paid cavalry is that regularly employed by the Venetian writers of the sixteenth century: for example, Moro, 337; Bernardo, 330.
[326] Hammer, Geschichte, i. 95.
[327] D’Ohsson, vii. 353.
[328] For the great disturbance which they raised in 1593, see Zinkeisen, iii. 79.
[329] All of these names are spelled with an ingenious variety in contemporary writings:—
Spahi: spai, spachi, sipahi, sipah, spacoillain (spahi-oghlan).
Silihdar: selicter, sillictar, sulastrus, suluphtar.
Ulufagi: holofagi, allophase.
Ghureba: caripy, caripicus, ciarcagi, caripp (oglan), gharib (oglan), capi (oglan)
The word Spahi is of identical derivation with Sepoy.
[330] Ramberti, below, p. 250; Junis Bey, below, p. 267; Postel, iii. 34. Giovio (Commentarius, 75) says that some Spahis brought as many as ten horsemen.
[331] Giovio, 75; Postel, iii. 35.
[332] They were called “poor youth” by Menavino, 152; Junis Bey, 267; Ramberti, 251; Trevisano, 126; Postel, iii. 36. Spandugino, 97, says that they were strangers from Asia, Egypt, and Africa. Giovio, 76, says that they were all Moslems from Persia, Turcomania, Syria, Africa, Arabia, Scythia, and even India; but he is wrong in confining them to Moslems in the sixteenth century. Trevisano, 126, asserts that they were renegades from every nation; and on this authority Zinkeisen falls into the opposite error of confining them to Christian renegades. Postel, iii. 36, says that they were chosen from the Akinji, Kurds, and Azabs. Menavino, 152, declares that they were not slaves of the great Turk, but that part were Turks, part Christian renegades, and part Arabs (Mori).
[333] The Spahis of the Porte are discussed at length in D’Ohsson, vii. 364 ff.; Hammer, Staatsverwaltung, 237 ff.; Zinkeisen, iii. 168 ff.
[334] Giovio (Commentarius, 75) mentions 2000 in each of the first two corps, and 1000 in each of the second two. Junis Bey (below, p. 267) puts 3000 in each of the first two corps, 2000 in each of the second two. Ramberti (below, p. 250) gives more than 3000 Spahi-oghlans, 3000 Silihdars, and 2000 in each of the other corps. Ludovisi, 15, puts 3000 in each of the first two, 2500 in the third, and 2000 in the fourth. Trevisano, 125, puts 2000 in each but the fourth, which contained 1500. D. Barbarigo, 33, mentions 7095 Spahis. Barbaro, 304, says that there were 15,000 Spahis of the Porte. There were under pay in 1660, after serious changes, 7203 Spahis, 6254 Silihdars, 976 Ulufajis, and 722 Ghurebas: Hammer, Staatsverwaltung, 175.
[335] A calculation based on Junis Bey’s statements gives a total of between 41,000 and 49,000. Garzoni, 413, says distinctly that there were 40,000 Spahis of the Porte paid out of the sultan’s treasury; that among these were 3000 Spahi-oghlans, 3000 Silihdars, 3000 Ulufajis, and 2000 Ghurebas (ciarcagi); and that the grand vizier had 1000 Spahis assigned to his retinue, and the other viziers each 500. D’Ohsson, vii. 364-365, states that the Spahis proper in the time of Mohammed II, numbered 10,000, and that Achmet III, raised their strength to 12,000; like figures for the Silihdars were 8000 and 12,000. This estimate must include the additional horsemen.
[336] Hammer, Geschichte, iii. 57; Menavano, 148, 151.
[337] See above, pp. 47 (note 1), 91. The Ottoman feudal system is discussed at length in Hammer, Staatsverfassung, 337 ff.; D’Ohsson, vii. 372 ff.; Zinkeisen, iii. 145 ff.; Belin, Du Régime des Fiefs Militaires en Turquie; Tischendorf, Moslemisches Lehnswesen.
[338] Junis Bey (below, p. 271) says, shortly after describing the feudal Spahis of Europe, that “all the Spahis are slaves and sons of slaves of the Seigneur (Tutti li spachi sono schiaui & figli de schiaui del Sig[nor]);” but this statement is incomplete. Ramberti (below, p. 256) adds, “and sons of Spahis.” The latter group undoubtedly contained the great majority of the feudal Spahis. Geuffroy 246, enlarges on the statement by saying that the 30,000 feudal Spahis of Europe were all Ajem-oghlans and slaves of the great Turk. No other writer terms them kullar. Garzoni, 412, calls them Turkish soldiers. The whole theory of the Ottoman feudal system made them such; the smaller fiefs were hereditary from of old, and gaps were filled from volunteers with the army, who must have been Moslems, since Christians were not allowed to bear arms: Hammer, Staatsverfassung, 349 ff. (“Kanun-nameh of the granting of Timars and Ziamets”).
[339] Junis Bey, p. 271 (they collect the income from the Christians, etc.); Moro, 339 (they are appointed by the king to administer justice); Hammer, Geschichte, iii. 478; D’Ohsson, vii. 373. Heidborn, 157, discusses their duties in some detail.
[340] Hammer, Staatsverwaltung, 275; Heidborn, 145.
[341] Hammer, Geschichte, iii. 476.
[342] Spandugino, 146, states that under Mohammed II, each fief-holder who had 5000 aspers of income was obliged to bring another with him to war; but in his time (under Bayezid II) this obligation was imposed upon those who had 3000 aspers, unless retired on account of age. Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 256-271) say that for each 100 ducats a Spahi must keep an armed horseman, and three or four servants, and a like number of horses; see also D’Ohsson, vii. 373. Heidborn, 145, states that holders of timars brought an additional warrior for each 3000 aspers of income, and holders of ziamets an additional one for each 5000 aspers; but in any case the first 3000 aspers was exempt.
[343] D’Ohsson, vii. 374.
[344] Hammer, Staatsverfassung, 352.
[345] Ibid. 94.
[346] Hammer (ibid. 143 ff.) describes Suleiman’s legislation, giving translations of much of it.
[347] Ricaut, 343.
[348] D’Ohsson, vii. 374; Hammer, Staatsverfassung, 352 ff.
[349] The limit differed according to region. In Rumelia a teskereh was required for all timars of 6000 aspers and over, and for all ziamets: Hammer, Staatsverwaltung, 275.
[351] Garzoni, 413; Tanco, 209.
[352] Bernardo, 329; Knolles (ed. 1687), 983.
[353] Spandugino, 211; Zinkeisen, iii. 129. The feudal Spahis had lower officers who were not sent out from the capital, such as the Cheribashis.
[354] The name means “ensign bey,” and was translated flambole: for example, Geuffroy, 246.
[355] Postel, iii. 44; Tiepolo, 138.
[356] Heidborn, 140, says that the Subashis had ziamets, the Alai Beys had small khasses, the Sanjak Beys had khasses of a million aspers or more, and the Beylerbeys much more. The amount which he assigns to the Sanjak Beys is too large for Suleiman’s time. Ramberti (below, pp. 256-258) gives their income at from 4000 to 12,000 ducats, which would amount to from 200,000 to 600,000 aspers.
[358] Menavino, 186, 190, says that in his time the Beylerbey of Anatolia resided at Kutaia (Custage). Ramberti, 259, mentions the same place (Chiothachie) as the seat of his sanjakate. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 986) says that all the Beylerbeys except the Beylerbey of Rumelia were supposed to reside within their dominions.
[359] Tractatus, ch. xi.
[360] Trevisano, 132.
[361] In Europe 30,000 Spahis and 20,000 Timarjis; in Anatolia 12,000 Spahis; in Karamania 7000, Amasia 4000, and Avandole 7000. This is the estimate of Junis Bey and Ramberti, which Geuffroy, 247, follows, and which Postel, iii. 37 ff., changes a little (Karamania 5000 instead of 7000, Amasia omitted). Ludovisi, 16, gives practically the same figures. Navagero, 41, gives 40,000 in Europe and 80,000 to 100,000 in Asia, the latter figure probably including the troops of Syria and Mesopotamia, and of Egypt, which was not provided with fiefs in the same way. Barbaro, 304, and Garzoni, 412, mention 80,000 in Europe and 50,000 in Asia. D. Barbarigo (1558), 33, speaks of a sum total of 160,000 feudal Spahis. Tiepolo (1576), 140, speaks of 60,000 timars in Europe which sent 80,000 Spahis, and 50,000 Spahis from Asia. The number may have increased about one-half during Suleiman’s reign, but it is more likely that all the groups of figures are only estimates. Ricaut, 341, after careful inquiry, gives the number of Zaims in his time as 10,948, and of Timarjis as 72,436, for the whole empire except Egypt. He thinks that this estimate should be increased to 100,000. The total feudal contingent in the time of Achmet I, was by Turkish authority about the same (Tischendorf, 57 ff.). D’Ohsson, vii. 375, estimates the feudal troops at 200,000 in Suleiman’s time; on p. 381, however, he speaks of more than 150,000 men. See below, p. 107, n. 1.
[362] Postel, iii. 38 (“triple pour le moins”).
[363] Chesneau, 46; D’Ohsson, vii. 381. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 990) says that not over one-third could safely be called to arms.
[364] After the year 1541: Hammer, Geschichte, iii. 232.
[365] After the year 1552: Trevisano, 124. The number of the Beylerbeys was greatly increased in the last third of the sixteenth century. Knolles, 986-988, mentions five in Europe, 30 in Asia, and 4 in Africa, besides the Beylerbey of the Sea, whose office was created by Suleiman, but who is not mentioned above as having no part in the army.
[366] Spandugino, 153; Nicolay, 160.
[367] The name akinji is variously spelled: yachinji, alcanzi, alcangi, aconiziae, alengi, aquangi, achiar, aghiar. Spandugino, 150, says that the sultan can collect 200,000 of these for the war; Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 257, 271) mention 60,000 as inscribed; Giovio (Commentarius, 81) names 30,000; Garzoni, 414, says 25,000 or 30,000; Postel, iii. 26, says 50,000 or 60,000. Ramberti, 271, tells us that when in arms they were entitled to living expenses from the villages near which they passed.
[368] Zinkeisen, iii. 203.
[369] Spandugino, 152. Junis Bey, 270, mentions 1000 with the fleet, and Postel, iii. 71, mentions 10,000.
[370] Postel, iii. 26.
[371] Chalcocondyles, 135; Giovio, Commentarius, 81, etc.
[372] Spandugino, 151.
[374] Junis Bey, below, p. 268. In addition were several thousand saddlers, etc., who were not reckoned as regular troops: the Bostanjis, older pages, body-guards, etc.
[375] Knolles (ed. 1687), 984.
[376] Several contemporary estimates of the complete army may be compared: Marini Sanuto, under date of October 26, 1529, gives an estimate of the Turkish army then before Vienna as containing 305,200 men. The same writer (Diarii, lvi) gives three or four estimates from the year 1532, when Suleiman went forth on the Güns campaign: on p. 768, Suleiman’s army is said to contain 500,000 men; on p. 870 is found an account of Suleiman’s entry into Belgrade, in which 170,300 men are mentioned, besides “adventurers” and “many others”; on the same page is estimated the number with which the Sultan was to leave Belgrade, which sums up 284,500, and does not seem to account fully for the territorial armies; on p. 894 he summarizes a despatch from Ratisbon, dated August 23, 1532, which relates the testimony of three Turkish prisoners to the effect that the Turkish army numbers over 300,000 persons, but that not over 80,000 are good fighting men. Postel, iii. 38, estimates the enrolled army at 218,000, and the whole at 500,000. He states elsewhere that Suleiman took 500,000 men with him on the Persian expedition of 1534-35. Chesneau’s impression (pp. 106-108) of Suleiman’s army, when he saw it near Aleppo in the spring of 1549, was that it occupied 80,000 to 100,000 tents, on a plain eight to ten miles long; that it contained 300,000 to 400,000 fighting men, of whom all but 10,000 or 12,000 Janissaries were on horseback; and that the total number of persons assembled was about a million. Chesneau’s chief, the ambassador D’Aramont, writing concerning the same expedition from Esdron (Erzerum?) a few weeks later, speaks of “the mass of his (Suleiman’s) army, which is by common estimate of 300,000 men, as may be judged from the extent of the camp, which extends ten or twelve miles in length, and contains at least 60,000 tents or more, with such order and obedience that, considering the great multitude, it is almost unbelievable” (Charrière, ii. 68). In the year 1558, A. Barbarigo, 150-151, estimated the cavalry alone at more than 300,000. Twenty-six years after Suleiman’s death Bernardo, 331, says that the paid troops, in which he includes the sultan’s household and the feudal army, amounted to 250,000 men. Zinkeisen, iii. 199, estimates the extreme total of the sultan’s cavalry alone at 565,000. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 984), writing about 1603, says that the sultan could always gather 150,000 Timariotes for a great expedition. He says that the Timariotes numbered in all 719,000 fighting men, of whom 257,000 were in Europe and 426,000 in Asia. The last two estimates are incredibly large.
[377] Tractatus, ch. xi, marginal summary.
[378] La Broquière, 273.
[379] Chalcocondyles, 135.
[380] Giovio, Commentarius, 83 (condensed).
[381] Busbecq, Life and Letters, i. 293; on p. 221 he compares Turkish and Western soldiers most unfavorably for the latter.
[382] Postel, i. 126; see also Dandolo, 166. Georgevitz, 45, says that he accompanied the Turkish army on an expedition against Persia (probably 1533 to 1536): “I saw a Spahi decapitated together with his horse and servant, because the horse, having been left loose, entered some one’s field.”
[383] Postel, iii. 31, speaking particularly of the Janissaries.
[384] Morosini, 261.
[385] The Policy of the Turkish Empire, “To the Reader.”
[386] Junis Bey (below, pp. 274, 275) gives the order of march; Postel, 29 ff., describes the encampment.
[387] Chalcocondyles, 135, says that the Turks lodged more grandly in the field than in peace at home.