Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:11:35.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ottoman Merchants in Constantinople During the First Half of the Fifteenth Century*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Nevra Necipoğlu
Nevra Necipoğlu*
Affiliation:
Boğaziçi University Istanbul
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Despite growing interest among both Byzantinists and Ottoman scholars in the respective long-distance commercial ventures of Byzantine Greek and Ottoman Muslim merchants, studies focusing on the trade relations between these two groups have not yet been undertaken. This article, which examines some sources that document the presence and economic activities of Ottoman Turks in Constantinople during the first half of the fifteenth century, is intended to serve as a contribution to this neglected field of study. Moreover, by means of an examination of commercial relations, the article aims to shed further light on the daily, informal contacts between the Byzantines and the Ottomans which remains a relatively unexplored aspect of Byzantine-Ottoman relations.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 16 , 1992 , pp. 158 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1992

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. For the international activities of Byzantine merchants, see Oikonomidès, N., Hommes d’affaires grecs et latins à Constaintople (XIIIe-XVesiècles) (Montreal-Paris 1979)Google Scholar; Laiou-Thomadakis, A.E., ‘The Byzantine Economy in the Mediterranean Trade System, Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries’, DOP 34–35 (1982) 177–222 Google Scholar; eadem, ‘The Greek Merchant of the Palaeologan Period: A Collective Portrait’, 57 (1982) 96-132. For the international activities of Ottoman merchants, see Inalcik, H., ‘Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire’, The Journal of Economic History 19 (1960) 113 (n.44), 138 Google Scholar; Kafadar, C., ‘A Death in Venice (1575): Anatolian Muslim Merchants Trading in the Serenissima’, in Raiyyet Rüsûmu. Essays presented to Halil Inalcik, in Journal of Turkish Studies 10 (1986) 191–218.Google Scholar

2. Âsikpasazâde, , Tevârîh-i Al-i Osmân, in Atsiz, N., ed., Osmanli Tarihleri, I (Istanbul 1949) 137 Google Scholar; Ducae Historia turcobyzantina (1341-1462), ed. Grecu, V. (Bucharest 1958), XIII. 5 (77)Google Scholar; Annales ecclesiastici, eds. Raynaldus, O. and Baronius, C., 26 (Barri-Ducis, 1878) 540, no. 7 Google Scholar. Despite chronological variances, these sources offer similar information. Âsikpasazâde, who gives the most detailed account, writes that after the Ottoman victory at Nikopolis (1396), Bayezid first demanded the surrender of Constantinople, but then made peace when the Byzantine government accepted the construction of a mosque (‘mahalle mescidi’) and the installation of a kadi inside the city, in addition to the payment of an annual tribute of 10,000 gold pieces (‘filöri’). Following this agreement, Bayezid had the inhabitants of the fortresses of Göynük and Darakci Yenicesi settled in Constantinople within the special quarter assigned to the Ottomans. On the other hand, the entry in the Annales ecclesiastici reports under the year 1393 Bayezid’s demand for a Turkish quarter, a mosque, and an annual tribute of 10,000 gold pieces. Doukas reports only Bayezid’s demand for the installation of a kadi, dating this event to 1391. Genoese expense accounts for Pera seem to confirm Doukas’ dating: see Iorga, N., Notes et extraits pour servir à l’histoire des Croisades au XVe siècle, I (Paris 1899) 47 (16 Oct. 1391), 52 (17 Oct. 1391)Google Scholar; Belgrano, L.T., ‘Prima serie di documenti riguardanti la colonia di Pera’, ASLSP 13 (1877), no. 38 (24 May 1392), 171–172 Google Scholar: ‘… pro zucharo pro recipiendo Cadi turchorum in Palacio’. Another Genoese document from Pera mentions transportation costs for a kadi as early as 28 October 1390 [Iorga, Notes et extraits, I, 43: ‘… pro expensis factis in barch[a] pro Cadi.’] But this may have been an earlier arrangement permitting occasional visits of an Ottoman kadi rather than the permanent residence of one inside the Byzantine capital. See also Cantemir, D., History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire, trans. Tindal, N. (London 1734-35) 52–53 Google Scholar, where Âsikpasazâde’s account is repeated.

3. Âsikpasazâde, ed. Atsiz, 137.

4. Le Voyage d’Outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquière, ed. Schefer, Ch. (Paris 1892; repr. 1972) 165 Google Scholar.

5. Statement by the metropolitan of Medeia to the Patriarch Euthymios (1410-1416) reported by Syropoulos, in Les ‘Mémoires’ du Grand Ecclésiarque de l’Église de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le concile de Florence (1438-1439), ed. and trans. Laurent, V. (Paris 1971) 102 Google Scholar; and observation by John of Ragusa, in Cecconi, E., Studi storici sul concilio di Firenze, I (Florence 1869) dxi.Google Scholar

6. Chrysostomides, J., ‘Venetian Commercial Privileges Under the Palaeologi’, Studi Veneziani 12 (1970) doc. 19, (354–355)Google Scholar; Iorga, Notes et extraits, 1,281-282; Thiriet, F., Régestes des délibérations du Sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie, II (Paris-The Hague 1959) no. 1705 Google Scholar.

7. Dennis, G.T., ‘The Byzantine-Turkish Treaty of 1403’, OCP 33 (1967) 78 Google Scholar.

8. Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, ed. and trans. Majeska, G.P. (Washington, D.C. 1984) 190–191 Google Scholar. 1 am grateful to Dr. Konstantin Al. Zhukov for bringing this passage to my attention.

9. Il libro dei conti di Giacomo Badoer (Costantinopoli 1436-1440), eds. U. Dorini, T. Bertele (Rome 1956). These merchants were: Ali Basa turcho (Badoer, 382, 390, 391); Choza Ali turcho 341, 375); Amet turco de Lichomidia (7, 27, 33, 84, 85, 86); Azi turcho (394); Ismael turcho (139, 178); Choza/Chogia Is (s) e turcho (178, 236, 375, 382); Jacsia turcho (73, 112); ChaziMusi turcho (58, 139); Mustafa turcho (375, 382); Ramadan de Simiso (73, 97, 144); Chazi Rastan turcho (402, 465, 483); Saliet turcho (6, 14, 15, 17, 45, 96, 105). In addition, there are three unnamed Turks (137, 139, 382), who may or may not already be among the twelve merchants whose names are mentioned. On all of this, see Kafadar, ‘A Death in Venice’, 193, n.8.

10. Badoer, 15, 139. In P. Schreiner’s awaited edition of some account books kept by Byzantine-Greek merchants (see Byzantinobulgarica 7 [1981] 215-219), it should be possible to trace more transactions of various types — and not just money transactions — that must have taken place between Greek and Ottoman merchants.

11. Kafadar, ‘A Death in Venice’, 193-194.

12. See Inalcik, H., Fatih Devri üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar (Ankara 1954) 81f.Google Scholar; Uzuncarsih, İ.H., Candarh Vezir Ailesi (Ankara 1974) 56–91 Google Scholar. Information on Halil Pasa’s pro-Byzantine and pro-peace attitude can be found in the following sources: Âsikpasazâde, ed. Atsiz, , 192; Georgios Sphrantzes, Memorii, 1401–1477, ed. Grecu, V. (Bucharest 1966), XXIII. 9–11 (60)Google Scholar; Pseudo-Phranttes = Macarie Melissenos Cronica, 1258-1481, ed. Grecu, in Sphrantzes, Memorii, 408-412, 436; Doukas, ed. Grecu, XXXIV.2, XXXV.5, XL.3, (293, 311-313, 377); Critobuli Imbriotae Historiae, ed. D.R. Reinsch (Berlin 1983) 1.76,1-2 (87); Leonard of Chios, in MPG 159, col. 937; Tedaldi, Jacopo, ‘Informazioni’, in Martène, E. and Durand, U., eds., Thesaurus novus anecdotorum complectens regum acprincipum aliorumque virorum illustrium epistolas et diplomata bene multa, I (Paris 1717; repr., New York 1968) cols. 1821–1822 Google Scholar. Note that Doukas records in Turkish how Halil came to be labelled among his Ottoman adversaries as (gavur ortaği), and correctly translates the term into Greek as ‘companion or helper of the Greeks’ (3136).

13. Sphrantzes, ed. Grecu, XXIII.9-11 (60).

14. Badoer, 178, 236; cf. 374, 382. See also Kafadar, ‘A Death in Venice’, 193, n.8.

15. İnalcik, Fatih Devri, 145: ‘Timâr-i Mustafa ve Petros birâder-i o …’ The names are cited in a defter dating from 1454-1455, that is about sixty years after the Ottoman conquest of the area.

16. Actes de Dionysiou, ed. N. Oikonomidès (Paris 1968) no. 40 (ca. 1500) (189); Sahillioglu, H., ‘Bir MültezimZimem Defterine gòre XV. Yüzyil Sonunda Osmanli Darphane Mukataalan’, Istanbul Üniversitesi Íktisat Fakultesi Mecmuasi 23 (1962-63) 188, 192 Google Scholar (ca. 1481) [From this document, we also learn Mustafa’s original Greek first name, as he is referred to once as ‘Andronikos, son of Katakuzino[s], also known as (nâm-i diger) Mustafa’]; Zachariadou, E.A., ‘Ottoman Documents from the Archives of Dionysiou (Mount Athos) 1495-1520’, Südost-Forschungen 30 (1971), doc. 10 (5 Sept. 1509), 14–15 Google Scholar; 28 and n.55.

17. Thiriet, Régestes, II, no. 2209; Iorga, Notes et extraits, I, 523-524.

18. Badoer, 74, 27, 89, 334, 628.

19. ibid., 13, 74, 452, 650.

20. Gazavât-i Sultân Murad b. Mehemmed Han, eds. Inalcik, H. and Oguz, M. (Ankara 1978) 7 Google Scholar. On the so-called ‘Tatar soldiers’ and their role in the Ottoman army during the 14th and 15th centuries, see ibid., 83-85 (n.6-7); Mihailovic, Konstantin, Memoirs of a Janissary, trans. Stolz, B., commentary and notes by Soucek, S. (Ann Arbor 1975) 159–161, 232 Google Scholar (n.6-8).

21. Cananos, Giovanni, L’assedio di Costantinopoli. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione, note e lessico, ed. Pinto, E. (Messina 1977) 60.Google Scholar

22. Roccatagliata, A., Notai genovesi in Oltremare. Atti rogati a Pera e Mitilene, vol. I: Pera, 1408–1490 (Genoa 1982), no. 13 (69–71).Google Scholar

23. It is also conceivable that the man in question was Persian.

24. Fra Bartolomeo di Giano, ‘Epistola de crudelitate Turcarum’, in MPG 158, col. 1063d. See also col. 1058a, for slave trade through the port of Gallipoli.

25. Badoer, 6, 7, 33, 37, 59, 66, 72, 73, 88, 89, 93-97, 102, 110, 112, 115, 121, 157, 179, 186, 236, 264, 265, 306, 308, 336, 362, 375, 396, 499, 572, 579, etc.

26. Roccatagliata, A., ‘Con un notaio genovese tra Pera e Chio nel 1453-1454’, Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 17 (1979), 224.Google Scholar

27. On the officially peaceful political relations of this period, see Barker, J.W., Manuel II Palaeol gus (1391-1425) A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick 1969) 287–289, 318–320, 331 354, 389–390.Google Scholar

28. Doukas, ed. Grecu, XXIX. 1 (245). According to Doukas, the territorial losses of Byzantium in 1424 included the cities and towns on the Black Sea coast (except some fortresses such as Mesembria and Derkoi), Zeitounion and the lands along the Strymon. Compare these losses with the territorial gains of Byzantium during the decade following the battle of Ankara: Doukas, ed. Grecu, XVIII.2 (111-113) (treaty with Sùleyman, in 1403), XX. 1 (133) (treaty with Mehmed I, in 1413); Dennis, ‘Byzantine-Turkish Treaty of 1403’, 78. The amount of the tribute Murad II demanded in 1424 was 300,000 aspers, according to Doukas, or 100,000 ducats, according to a contemporary Venetian document from Coron preserved in Marino Sanuto’s Vite dei duchi di Venezia, ed. Muratori, L.A., Rerum italicarum scriptores, 22 (Milan 1733)Google Scholar, col. 975B. While Constantinople remained free from the tribute obligation throughout 1403-1424, in Thessaloniki tribute payment may have been resumed as early as in 1411.