204 chapter 5
were allotted to sipahis as timars (this distrust of vakf endowment, which
brings to mind similar remarks by Mustafa Ali, is also to be found in Koçi Bey’s
and Aziz Efendi’s treatises)30; other memoranda of the same group complain
again about the granting of timars to servants and slaves (M140: bölük halkı
hidmetkârlarına ve azadsız köleleri).
This led to the destruction of the sipahi class and their oppression by sala-
ried slaves (ulufeli kul); the sipahis came to be dependent on the vükelâ, i.e. the
proxies of the local governors. But, Koçi Bey notes,
whoever has a fief from the emperor has no place in the household of a
slave vekil; slaves befit to slaves (hünkâr dirliğine mütesarrıf olanlar vükelâ
kapısında neyler? Kul kul gerektir) (A32, Ç44).This way, concludes Koçi Bey, the army was led astray: timariots started to wear
luxury clothes instead of armor, and now only a very small percentage of the
timariots called up in times of campaign are ready for battle: real sipahis be-
came workers (ırgad işin işleyüp), and this is no way to win any war.
In line with older administrative language, the ruin of the timariot system
is closely connected to the fate of the peasants. As explained by Koçi Bey, as
the salaried slave-army increased, the same happened with the expenses of
the treasury, and so the tax burden of the peasants increased several times.
This became even more acute after the janissary cavalry took over tax collec-
tion, which only resulted in more oppression. Contrary to the law, imperial
fiefs (havass-ı hümayun) were given as private property, vakfs, or honorable
fiefs (paşmaklık). Koçi Bey states that no other date or place has ever seen such
a terrible oppression as that imposed on the reaya in his days; and it is the
sultan who will be judged responsible, not his representatives. The woes of the
oppressed can destroy dynasties, because “world can be maintained with blas-
phemy, but not with tyranny” (küfr ile dünya durur, zülmile durmaz),31 Koçi
Bey concludes grimly (A48; Ç63). And indeed, as, from 1582 onwards, imperial
30 Koçi Bey writes that not all vakf endowments comply with the Holy Law; a proper vakf
must be made for charitable reasons and from land acquired due to conquests or other
services to the state, whereas now magnates take villages and lands as a gift just because
they are close to the sultan, and then proceed to name these lands vakf in order to ensure
a steady income for their children. Income from these properties, however, should belong
to the warriors of the faith (A55–56; Ç71–73). As for Aziz Efendi, he stresses that villages
that have been given to useless people who declared them as vakıfs, in opposition to the
law, should be redistributed as timars to the army (M6).
31 This expression is very often used in Ottoman literature and comes from Nizam al-Mulk’s
Siyasatname: Hagen 2005, 71.