Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:37:20.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The army in Palestine in the eighteenth century—sources of its weakness and strength

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Amnon Cohen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the outstanding examples of the degeneration of the Ottoman administration in Palestine in the eighteenth century was the situation in the military field. Army units were stationed permanently in those towns which were important to the Ottoman régime. The locations had been determined in the very early stages of the Ottoman conquest, but the same criteria were still being applied in the eighteenth century, without being re-examined. This does not mean that the system was entirely inflexible: army units were brought to man those new strongholds (Haifa, Jaffa) which the supreme authorities decided to establish in order to strengthen the security network. But it appears, as these examples show, that this was done mainly in the coastal towns. It was there that the Ottoman régime felt itself to be exposed to the greatest danger, since it was, in one way or another, threatened by the uncertain whims of the Christian pirates. It should be noted that from the objective point of view their fears were greatly exaggerated, if not unfounded, in the eighteenth century, since the pirates did not even try to expand their activities beyond the harassment of merchant ships sailing along the coast. But according to the Weltanschauung of the Ottoman rulers this constituted a grave threat to the Muslim state. When the construction of these strongholds was ordered an additional reason for their establishment was given: the need to prevent Bedouin attacks. There was a certain amount of truth in this story but, again, it should be regarded in correct perspective: the Sublime Porte recognized the need to curb the Bedouin raids which constituted an acute problem in the eighteenth century. But if this had been the main reason it would have been necessary to establish new strongholds, or strengthen existing ones, in inland regions and on the border of the desert rather than in Haifa or Jaffa. This was not done since the Bedouin were, after all, Muslims, and according to the concepts of the Ottoman régime, could not seriously threaten the existence of the empire, at least not to the same extent as the Christian infidels. In retrospect we see that the damage which the Bedouin wrought to the Ottoman state in this period was undoubtedly greater than that caused by the Christian pirates; but, as has been stated, this was not recognized at the time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 1971 , pp. 36 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jevdet, , Ta'rīkh, I, Istanbul, 1309/1891–1892, 89–108 Google Scholar; Gibb, H. A. R. and Bowen, H., Islamic society and the West, i, Pt. I, London, 1957, 173–99Google Scholar; Kurd, M. ‘Alī, Khital al-Shām, in, Damascus, 1925, 3–4 Google Scholar.

2 Istanbul, Başbakanhk Arşivi, Maliyeden Müdevvere, 5542, pp. 587, 608, 630, 636. These are lists of the Treasury's expenditures—mubāsebe-i īrād ve masraf defteri—for the years 1122–6/ 1710–15; Maliye, 10033, p. 81, firman dated 26 Rabī' I 1196/11 March 1782. The classification of the soldiers in that firman does not mention Topchuyān, and on the other hand, the number of Janissaries is much greater than at the beginning of the century: 220 as against between 105 and 125 at the beginning. This is not a change, but a clerical error, since there were Topchuyān in Jerusalem in those years as well, but for some reason the clerk added the number of Topchuyan to that of Janissaries. See Başbakanlik Arşivi, Ali Emiri, Selim 3, 8276 which declares specifically that there were 137 Janissaries guarding Jerusalem in that year.

3 In the words of the document (Başbakanlik Arşivi, Mühimme Defteri, 115, p. 375): Quds-i sherīf muhāfuẓasi sā'ir serftaddlara qiyās olunmayub arz-ī muqaddesede merāqid-i enbiyā-i 'iẓām ve meshāhid-i evliyā-i kirām olmaghla.

4 Maliye, 1791, pp. 21, 30; de Volney, C. F. C., Voyage en Éigypte el en Syrie, ed. Gaulmier, J., Paris, 1959, 298–9Google Scholar.

5 The defence of these places was left to the initiative of the mülteziins who ruled them. See Jezzār's criticism in his letters from Istanbul at the end of the 1770's in Cevdet Maliye, 27130.

6 Maliye, 3878, p. 69, states that in mid-1707 there were 53 Janissaries in the Sidon stronghold according to the establishment; Maliye, 4929, p. 12, which details the khazīne expenditures of Damascus for the maintenance of the troops in the various strongholds in Palestine for the year 1184/1770–1, states that there were 55 soldiers at Sidon. This was not merely a theory, since even Volney, who toured the area in the early 1780's, writes (op. cit., 298–9) that the garrison in Sidon did not total 100 men, and had several cannon but no gunners to operate them. The number of troops at Sidon in 1660 was 53 ( Heyd, U., Ottoman documents on Palestine, 1552–1615, Oxford, 1960, 190–1)Google Scholar.

7 cf. Maliye, 1791, pp. 21, 30, for the year 1129/1716–17 and Maliye, 4929, p. 12, for the year 1184/1770–1.

8 Fekete, L., Die Siyāqat-Schrift in der tūrkischen Fina?izverwallung, Budapest, 1955, I, 96 Google Scholar, notes that the agha of the Janissaries also served as dizdār in smaller towns.

9 Mariti, G., Istoria della stato presente della cittd di Gerusalemme, I, Livorno, 1790, 29 Google Scholar; Başbakanhk Arşivi, Ahkâm-i Şam, 1, p. 268; Mühimme, 115, pp. 375–6.

10 Mühimme, 136, p. 264.

11 Maliye, 10183, p. 298, firman of 18 Ramadān 1155/16 November 1742.

12 The accounts of the Sidon merchants' ‘nation’ for 1724, document no. 65 (Archives de la Chambre de Commerce de Marseille (ACCM), J–857).

13 Mühimme, 115, p. 203.

14 For a description of these two incidents see the letter of the French consul in Sidon, dated 25 October 1702 (France, Archives Rationales, Correspondence Consulaire au Ministre des Affaires Étrangères, BI, 1017) and a description by a priest from Jerusalem in his letter dated 22 April 1704 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1020). The consul's letter of 18 March 1716 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1020) again describes the pressure exerted by the agha of the Jerusalem Janissaries for the release of prisoners, arrested by the pasha.

15 Maliye, 10227, p. 273, the accounts of the expenditures of Māl-i Mīrī of the eyālet of Sidon for the year 1199/1784–5. But as regards the above item, it is stated that it was determined in a firman two years previously. It should be noted that, there too, the Sublime Porte endeavoured to ensure a certain amount of independence: a sum (which was also paid regularly in later years) was allocated for payment of the wages ('ulūfe) of the dizdār and not for payment of the wages (mevājib) of the Janissaries, as was generally customary. From the amount involved (some 150 kurush) and the above phrasing, one could arrive at the conclusion that the Janissaries nevertheless continued to receive the wages from other eyālets.

16 la Ahkâm-i Şam, 5, p. 69, of awākhir Dhū '1-Qa'da 1211/18–27 May 1797. Not only was this established in theory but the Sidon gunners also sent a special emissary (sāliyāneji) to Aleppo to collect the sum.

17 Specific phrasing which attests to the fact that this was not unknown to the Sublime Porte: Maliye, 10033, p. 81; cf. Volney, 272.

18 At the turn of the century he requested and obtained the Beirut khān and the town's ḥammām, which had been in ruins for 50 years. In partnership with a Latakian he bought the two properties from the Sublime Porte for a sum of 500 kwrush for the former and 250 for the latter (or to be exact: for half of it, since the other half belonged to the wāqf). They undertook to repair the buildings and prepare them for use, and in return obtained them as mūlk property. The same was done with several orchards of fruit-trees near Beirut, which in the past were mīrī of the Ma'an family: the gardens had been neglected for years (after the end of the rule of Fakhr al-DIn) and most of the trees had dried up, so that it was not worth the mültezim's while to rent them out. When Jawhar and his partner agreed to pay more than the rental and, in particular, to plant new trees, they obtained the orchards as mülk (Maliye, 2942, p. 84, firmans of 15 Safar 1114/11 July 1702 regarding the khān and the ḥammām; Maliye, 9893, p. 168, firman of 16 Dhu ‘1-Qa'da 1116/12 March 1705 regarding orchards). From the list of Jawhar Agha's property published after his death it appears that he developed these properties considerably, and that they brought him large annual sums, and also that he acquired further property (five shops, many gardens, houses for rent). On his death all these properties, which were mülk, returned to the Ottoman state: it was specifically stated that they had ceased to be mülk and had become mīrī once again. For extensive details regarding this matter, see Maliye, 10151, p. 179, various firmans from the year 1119/1707–8.

19 Ahkâm-i Şam, 1, p. 268, firman of awāsit Rablī' I 1166/16–25 January 1753; ibid., p. 222, of awākhir Rabī' I 1163/20–28 March 1750; ibid., p. 73, awā'il Jumādā I 1157/12–21 June 1744; Maliye, 9952, p. 288.

20 Maliye, 3878, p. 69.

21 A firman dated awā'il Rablī' 1171/13–22 November 1757 describes the sale of thousands of rifles in this way to the Bedouin, who later utilized them in their attac k against th e Hajj caravan. Not only was this prohibited commerce, but the source of these weapons was certainly, in part at least, the stores of the Ottoman army (Miihimme, 160, pp. 26–7).

22 Letter from the French consul in Sidon dated 12 April 1707 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1018).

23 Mühimme, 115, pp. 375–6, firman of awāsit Jumādā I 1119/10–19 August 1707. This tax should not be confused with the iḥtisāb tax, which was collected in Jerusalem once a week in accordance with a qānūn which dated from the sixteenth century ( Mantran, R. and Sauvaget, J. (tr.), Règlements fiscaux ottomans: les provinces syriennes, Beyrouth, 1951, 37–8)Google Scholar.

24 Cevdet Maliye, 27130. For similar remarks in a firman at the beginning of the century, see Maliye, 3878, p. 69.

25 AH Emiri, Abdül Hamid I, 20759, firmans from late 1198–early 1199/1784–5. As proof of the fact that the situation had lasted for many years, an appendix of defter-i yoklana on the situation at the Jerusalem stronghold in 1154/1741–2 is attached. An almost identical picture is revealed in Alexandria at the end of the century, as described by Türk, Nicola, Mudhalchirāt, ed. and tr. Wiet, G., Cairo, 1950 Google Scholar, text, 7, translation, 9.

26 Maliye, 2964, p. 374, firman of 23 Dhū '1-Qa'da 1127/20 November 1715; Volney, 344.

27 Mühimme, 115 pp. 375–6

28 In this context note the armed opposition of the Jerusalemites to the pash's attempt to bring into the city more than 500 soldiers at the beginning of the century (letter from the French consul in Sidon, daated 16 July 1703, Aff Ét., BI, 1017) and the population's participation in the attacks on the Janissaries.

29 A firman from the beginning of 1701 prohibits the Janissaries from living within the area of the Aqşā mosque, as they had begun to do, and from desecrating this holy place through their debauched behaviour (Mühimme, 111, p. 501).

30 ‘The inner citadel’, i.e. the known to-day as ‘David's Tower’.

31 Mühimme, 130, p. 210, firman dated awāsit Ramaḍān 1144/8–17 March 1732.

32 ‘Ā. al-‘Ārif, Ta'rīkh Ghazza, Jerusalem, 1943, 182, claims that the clashes reached an unprecedented level of intensity in mid-century.

33 See, for example Ahkâm-i Şam, 1, p. 138, on the rebelliousness of the Janissaries in Jerusalem in the late 1740's. It is interesting to note that on the same occasion the naqīb al-ashrāf claimed that most of the Janissaries were of the Prophet's family (sādāt) and were therefore under his authority.

34 Letter of the French consul in Sidon dated 25 October 1702 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1017) which describes the activities of the sipāhīs in Jerusalem at the beginning of the eighteenth century. At the beginning of the nineteenth century they united with the citizens of Jerusalem against their vālī. They were still strong enough for such action, and they expelled the emissary of the Sublime Porte from Jerusalem (Cevdet Dahiliye, 3493).

35 Türk yighitlerinden olub ‘Arab tā'ifesi deghiller, Maliye, 9927, p. 78 Google Scholar, firman dated 22 Muharram 1144/27 July 1731. Cf. Heyd, , Ottoman documents, 107 Google Scholar. Heyd translates ‘Arab as ‘Bedouin’ but in our case it is clear that the ‘Arab is presented as if not of Turkish origin, and therefore the classification is not only ecological.

36 Cevdet Maliye, 27130.

37 The French consul in Sidon wrote, on 28 Jul y 1708 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1018) that the vālī could not collect more than 1,000 soldiers while the mültezims could assemble 3,000 troops against him.

38 Ali Emiri, Mustafa III, 10333, firman dated 23 Dhü ‘l-Ḥijja 1181/11 May 1768.

39 Maliye, 10220, pp. 276–7, firman dated 9 Ṣafar 1191/19 March 1777, which quotes the reports of Jezzār on this matter. Ḍāhir overcame this limitation of lack of sufficient arms with the aid of French merchants, from whom he purchased all he needed. Jezzār did the same.

40 Mühimme, 115, p. 700, dated awā'il Sha'bān 1120/16–25 September 1708; Heyd, , Ottoman documents, 161 Google Scholar; Gibb and Bowen, I, Pt. I, p. 193 and note.

41 Letter from the French consul in Sidon dated 31 January 1709 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1018).

42 On Ḍāhir's army in the 1770's, see letter from the French consul in Sidon dated 2 June and appended bulletin dated 28 June 1772 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1035); Hammer, , Histoire de l' Empire ottoman, xvi, Paris, 1841, 351–4Google Scholar; Volney, , op. cit., 258 Google Scholar, which, as in other cases, ia based on the above letter of the French consul cited here. On the arming of Ḍāhir's troops, see letter of the French consul in Sidon, 28 August 1752 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1029); Maliye, 10220, pp. 276–7.

43 Istanbul, MS Esad Ef. 2419, fol. 100a.

44 Jevdet, , op. cit., II, 42 Google Scholar; Mühimme, 173, p. 156, firman dated awā'il Jumādā I 1190/18–27 June 1776.

46 Rafeq, A.-K., The province of Damascus, 1723–1783, Beirut, 1966, 40 Google Scholar.

46 It is interesting to note that Jezzār himself was of Bosnian origin. At an early age he left his country; he subsequently entered a Mamlūk household in Egypt, and had no contact with his fatherland. It is nevertheless possible that it was not coincidence that he regarded the Bosnian troops as the most loyal element in his army.

47 See a detailed description of the uniforms of these units and of the equipment of the horsemen in Lockroy, E., Ahmed le Boucher, Paris, 1888, 146–9Google Scholar. Following on the report of the French consul, he describes the departure of the units with Jezzār to meet the Ḥajj in the mid-1780's. The original description is in the letter of the French vice-consul in Acre dated 30 April 1785 (Aff. Ét., BI, 979) and refers to the departure of Jezzār's army on 18 April of that year. See also Volney, , op. cit., 288 Google Scholar; Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi Arşivi (TKS), E 4029; French consul in Sidon, 21 July 1784 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1040); letters of French consul in Acre dated 4 May and 13 May 1789 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1041).

48 The commander of this unit was called ‘Hawwāra’ bashi (I. al- ‘Awra, , Ta'rikh wilayat Sulaymdn Bashd al-'Adil, Sidon, 1936, 223)Google Scholar. Cevdet Timar, 523, notes, that in mid-1796 units of ‘Hawwāra’, employed by the mūtesellim of Gaza, were stationed, among other units, in th e Gaza-Rami earea. This verifies th e presence of elements of this tribe in Palestine at the end of the eighteenth century. On the other hand another source ( Manṣūr, A., Ta'rīkh al-Nāṣira, [Egypt], 1924, 56)Google Scholar states that Jezzār's 200 horsemen, known as ‘Hawwāra’, were not of this tribe; they were part of the ‘Awn tribes from the Damanhūr region in Egypt, whose Shaykh had been a friend of Jezzār's, and who sent them to him in 1778 for permanent aid.

49 Burckhardt, J. L., Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, London, 1822, 321–2Google Scholar.

50 TKS, E 4029; al-Munayyir, Ḥanāniyyā, Ta'rikh al-rahbana, Beirut, 1955, 443 Google Scholar, describes battles between the dulāt and Albanian units on the one hand and the maghāriba on the other hand in 1794. Following on these battles they were obliged to leave the area, to which they had been sent in order to collect taxes for Jezzār.

51 See, for example, Jezzār's reaction in earty 1791 when the Bosnian soldiers showed signs of rebelliousness by appearing at his Damascus palace and demanding payment of their wages six months in advance. Jezzār brought in his maghāriba units secretly, hid them in the palace, and with their aid succeeded in killing a large number of Bosnians (letter from the ‘exiled’ French merchants from Tripoli, dated 29 June 1791, ACCM, J–837).

52 Charles-Roux, F., Les é'chelles de Syrie et de Palestine au xvm siècle, Paris, 1928, 136 Google Scholar.

53 Mühimme, 188, pp. 8, 37; ibid., 189, p. 14; ibid., 193, p. 30; ibid., 185, p. 226. All these firmans are dated between Avigust 1788 and April 1790.

54 See, for example: Shihābī, A., Lubnān fī ‘ahd al-umara’ al-Shihābiyyīn, Beirut, 1933, 197 Google Scholar; al-Dimashqī, M., Ta'rīkh ḥawādith al-Shām via Lubnān, Beirut, 1912, 66 Google Scholar; Jevdet, , Ta'rīkh, v, Istanbul, 1278/1861–1862, 331 Google Scholar; Clarke, E. D., Travels in various countries of Europe, Asia and Africa, London, II, Sect. I, 1812, 490 Google Scholar.

55 al-Shidyāq, T., Ahhbār al-a'yān fī Jabal Lubnān, Beirut, 1954, I, 221 Google Scholar.

56 Hatt-i Hümayun, 6743–A, and Hatt-i Hümayun, 6788.

57 Mühimme, , 173, p. 145, of awāsiṭ Jumādā I 1190/27 June-5 07 1776Google Scholar.

58 de Testa, I., Recueil des traités de la Porte ottomane avec les puissances etrangères, Paris, 1864, II, 56 Google Scholar.

59 One may assume that Jezzār was exaggerating slightly when he threatened the Sublime Porte in early 1788 that he could gather an army of 20,000 to defend himself (French consul in Sidon, 3 April 1788, Aff. Ét., BI, 980).

60 For some interesting details of how the Druze amir mobilized his army in times of crisis see Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, F.Fr., no. 4212.

61 Clarke, , op. cit., II, Sect. I, 1812, 427 Google Scholar.

62 Numerous descriptions of activities of the type described above can be found in the writings of the Arab chroniclers. For example: al-Shidyāq, , op. cit., II, 100–16Google Scholar; Shihābī, , Lubnān, 173–83, 206–11Google Scholar; al-Dimashql, , op. cit., 66–7Google Scholar.

63 Cevdet Maliye, 27130, from Jezzār's letters, quoted by the Sublime Porte in firmans dated at the end of July 1777.

64 Volney specifically states (p. 288) that no pasha in Syria acted in such a way in Jezzār's time. We have an interesting description of what he did in the Acre stronghold: army units were ordered to guard the gates of the city and prevented the entrance of armed persons, whether enemy or friend, local inhabitant or distant visitor. All arms were deposited with the guards at the gate, and the name of the owner was registered, to prevent suspicion that the weapon would not be returned. ‘Thus, although the town is full of soldiers, there are no clashes between them’ (TKS, E 4029).

65 The terms appear man y times in TKS, D 4760. Th e term ‘asker as differentiated from yerliyān may testify to their different characters, but we found no hint of the reason for the uniqueness. al-Munayyir, Ḥanāniyya, op. cit., 379, 387Google Scholar, calls them by the comprehensive name ‘askar al-dawla, i.e. ‘the ruler's regular soldiers’ as opposed to ‘aslcar al-qabsīs (a distortion of kap s z ‘irregulars’), ibid., 394.

66 As Jezzār, for example, did when attempting t o conquer Mount Druze and turn it into an ordinary muqäṭa'a in 1206/1791–2 ( Shihābī, A., Ta'rīkh Aḥmad Bāshā al-Jazzār, Beirut, 1955, 117)Google Scholar. Fekete, , (op. cit., 96)Google Scholar notes that the Janissaries were sometimes calledc müstaḥfiẓān.

67 Detailed deploj'ment of permanent units (excluding mercenaries): water-mills on the Ga'aton and Na'aman, 15 bayrak; Marj'ayūn, 20 bayrak; Acre plains, 20 bayrak (their centre was al-Basa); Safad region, 5 bayrak; Bilād Bishāra, 50 bayrak; Bilād Shuqaif, 20 bayrak; iqlīm Shōmar, 15 bayrak; iqlīm Tuffāh, 20 bayrak; Beirut, 61 bayrak; Acre and Haifa, some 50 bayrak (TKS, D 4760). In Tiberias and Shafā ‘Amr there were also regular units the size of which is unknown (Maliye, 10231, p. 274).

68 The wages of a horseman, always higher than those of an infantryman, were 40 akche a day (Cevdet Maliye, 27130). At the end of the eighteenth century the wages of the dulāt at Aleppo were 10 kurush a month (40 akche a day), while an infantryman earned 5 kurush a month (20 akche a day) ( Bodman, H. L., Political factions in Aleppo, 1760–1826, University of North Carolina Press, 1963, 24)Google Scholar.

69 Volney, , op. cit., 272 Google Scholar, describes how, in the maghāriba units of the Aleppo pasha, the bayrak commanders reduced the number of their men to 60% of the establishment so as to appropriate the wages of those absent. According to Volney the same happened in other places in Syria.

70 In 1728 one of the two warships sank in Haifa Bay because of overloading by the captain. The ship settled lower than usual and because of faulty navigation hit a sand-bank and sank with its 45 cannon (French consul in Sidon, 19 and 22 July 1728, Aff. Ét., BI, 1021, and Aff. Ét., BI, 978).

71 Bulletin appended to letter of French consul in Sidon, 31 July 1772 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1035).

72 Firman dated 8 Ramaḍān 1193/19 September 1779 (Maliye, 10223, p. 267).

73 Letter from th e French consul in Sidon, dated 3 October 1775 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1037); letter from French consul in Acre dated 30 June 1788 (Aff. Ét., BI, 980); Maliye, 10022, p. 88, dated 10 Dhū 'l-Qa'da 1193/19 November 1779; letter from the French vice-consul in Sidon dated 31 December 1789 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1041) details the types of boat: 'l chebec, 3 galiottes, l kirlanguisch, 2 bateaux damiatins’. Volney, , op. cit., 289 Google Scholar, mentions a frigate in addition to some of the above. See also Spilsbury, F. B., Picturesque scenery in the Holy Land and Syria, London, 1823, 12–13 Google Scholar; de Tott, Baron, Mémoires sur les Turcs et les Tartans, Paris, 1785, iv, 78 Google Scholar; Mühimme, 178, p. 121.

74 See, for example, letter of the French consul in Acre dated 5 Jun e 1789 (Aff. Ét., BI, 1041). At the beginning of the 1790's, when Jezzār's relations with the French deteriorated, Baldwin, the British consul in Alexandria, supplied him with arms worth 100,000 kurush, and even with up-to-date field guns (letter from the former French consul in Acre, written from Jaffa, 1 November 1792 (Quai d'Orsay, Aff. Éf., Correspondance Consulaire, St. Jean d'Acre)).

76 Spilsbury, 13; Browne, W. G., Travels in Africa, Egypt, and Syria, from the year 1792 to 1798, London, 1806, 427 Google Scholar. Volney, is unequivocal on this subject (op. cit., 288)Google Scholar: ‘il entretien des soldats en plus grand nombre et mieux tenus qu'aucun autre pacha’.

78 Olivier, G. A., Voyage dans l' Empire ottoman, I'Egypte et la Perse, Paris, 1804, II, 260 Google Scholar.

77 For the connexion between Jezzār's wealth and his power, see Türk, Nicola, Mudhakkirāt, ed. and tr. Wiet, G., Cairo, 1950, translation, p. 259 Google Scholar, n. 2.