The first consequence of the Great Geographical Discoveries was the “price revolution”: As cheap gold and silver poured into Europe from overseas lands, the value of these metals (hence the value of money) fell sharply, and the yen on goods rose accordingly. The total amount of gold in Europe in the 16th century. increased by more than twofold, silver - threefold, and prices increased by 2-3 times.

First of all, the price revolution affected those countries that directly plundered new lands - Spain and Portugal. It would seem that the discoveries should have caused economic prosperity in these countries. In fact, the opposite happened. Prices in these countries increased 4.5 times, while in England and France - 2.5 times. Spanish and Portuguese goods became so expensive that they were no longer bought: cheaper goods from other countries were preferred. It must be taken into account that as prices rise, production costs also increase accordingly.

And this had two consequences: gold from these countries quickly went abroad, to the countries whose goods were purchased; handicraft production fell into decline because its products were not in demand. The flow of gold went bypassing the economy of these countries - from the hands of the nobles it quickly floated abroad. Therefore, already at the beginning of the 17th century. There was a shortage of precious metals in Spain, and so many copper coins were paid for a wax candle that their weight was three times the weight of the candle. A paradox arose: the flow of gold did not enrich Spain and Portugal, but dealt a blow to their economy, because feudal relations still prevailed in these countries. On the contrary, the price revolution strengthened England and the Netherlands, countries with developed commodity production, whose goods went to Spain and Portugal.

First of all, the winners were the producers of goods, artisans and the first manufacturers, who sold their goods at increased prices. In addition, more goods were now needed: they went to Spain, Portugal and overseas in exchange for colonial goods. Now there was no longer any need to limit production, and guild craft began to develop into capitalist manufacture.

Those peasants who produced goods for sale also benefited, and paid their dues with cheaper money. In short, commodity production won.

But the feudal lords lost: they received the same amount of money from the peasants in the form of rent.

9. Holland is a leading country of merchant capitalism.

It was no coincidence that Russian Tsar Peter I went to study European-style farming not just anywhere, but to Amsterdam. Then it was the capital of the most economically developed European country, a country that competed with England.

Already by the beginning of the 16th century. The Netherlands was called "country of cities" because almost half of the population were city dwellers.

But in terms of their economic development, the northern and southern parts of the Netherlands differed significantly. The most developed was the southern part - Flanders and Brabant - the old region of the cloth and linen industry. Already by the beginning of the 16th century. dominated in these industries capitalist manufacture of a dispersed type. It developed in rural areas because in cities its development was hampered by guild restrictions. In addition, the production of soap, glass, weapons and carpets developed here. The center of the southern part of the Netherlands was the city of Antwerp.

The northern part of the Netherlands - Holland and Zeeland - lagged behind in economic development. Fishing and shipbuilding were mainly developed here. Dutch fishermen caught herring « and supplied Catholic Europe with this “pious” product during Lent.

However, the north of the country had significant advantages, which created more opportunities for further development.

If the development of manufactories in the south was hampered by guild regulations, then in Holland the guilds did not receive full development, and the conditions for the development of manufactories were better. Therefore, although manufacturing arose here later, it developed faster: the manufacturers of the south gradually moved to the north.

The north of the Netherlands was an exception in economic history - there was practically no feudalism here: the peasants of Holland were never subject to feudal dependence. One of the reasons was natural conditions: Holland is a marshy country, flooded by the sea. The feudal lords did not seek to capture this swamp flooded by the sea. And the absence of feudal lords accelerated the development of productive forces. Free peasants not only drained the swamps, but also tripled the territory of their country by building dams and conquering large areas of land from the sea - polders. And when the enemy invaded the country, the Dutch destroyed dams and drowned enemy soldiers in their fields.

In the 16th century Agriculture in the north of the Netherlands was no longer subsistence: all products were sold to the city. It was a commercial farming area that supplied butter, cheese and wheat to the market.

These circumstances made it inevitable that the economic centers of the Netherlands would move from the south to the north. But the Netherlands in the 16th century. were part of the Spanish possessions and were subordinate to the Spanish king. At first it was even beneficial for the Netherlands, because, taking advantage of the backwardness of Spain, the Netherlands established trade with the Spanish colonies, receiving huge profits. By the middle of the 16th century. the situation deteriorated sharply. The Spanish king increased taxes on the residents of the Netherlands so much that 4 times more income began to flow into Spain than from all overseas colonies. The Spanish Inquisition entered the Netherlands, the Duke of Alba came here, executed about 120 thousand Dutch and introduced a new trade tax - alcabala:

a tenth of the value of any product upon its sale went to the Spanish treasury. Since goods were often resold several times before reaching the consumer, alcabala paralyzed the country's economy.

All this caused the bourgeois revolution, which took place in the form of a national liberation war against the rule of Spain. It should be noted that the bourgeois revolution often takes the form of a struggle with an external enemy. In the Netherlands, the role of the feudal elite, which hampered the economic development of the country and oppressed the local population, was played by the Spanish, essentially colonial administration. The war lasted almost the entire second half of the 16th century. and ended with the formation of an independent bourgeois republic in the north of the Netherlands. Dutch Republic(we will simply call it Holland for simplicity) then experiences a rapid, albeit short, economic takeoff. In the southern part of the Netherlands, which later formed the basis of Belgium, the revolution was defeated and Spanish dominance continued.

Holland begins active colonial expansion. At the beginning of the 17th century. The Dutch capture some Spanish and Portuguese colonies and create their own colonial empire. The exploitation of the colonies was carried out by the East India Company, organized on a joint stock basis. This company became a “state within a state”: it had its own troops, minted coins, and entered into agreements with other states.

The main colonies of this company were the Sunda Islands (present-day Indonesia), and it had strong bases in the surrounding seas, in India, Indochina and Japan.

On the islands the company created plantations of spices: pepper, cinnamon, cloves, nutmeg. Slave labor was used on the plantations, which, however, was common at that time. In order to replenish the number of slaves on the plantations of the island of Java, the company captured children on the island of Celebes. The kidnapped were kept until a certain age in secret “nurseries”, and then sent to plantations.

In order to maintain high prices for spices, the Dutch mercilessly destroyed part of the tracts of these plants and left only that part that provided maximum profit. Moreover, some of the spices already delivered to Amsterdam were burned right there in the port to prevent prices from falling.

Spices were sold in Europe for 8-10 times more than the company cost, but shareholder returns were not as great as might be expected: the colonies had to maintain an entire army and a huge staff of officials. The average dividend on shares was about 20% per annum.

After the victory of the bourgeois revolution in the economy of Holland itself, in addition to shipbuilding and fishing, the textile industry (silk, cloth and linen) developed:

Manufacturers from the southern part of the Netherlands, which remained under Spanish rule, began to move here intensively. The tobacco and sugar industries using colonial raw materials are also developing here.

But the main role in Holland was played not by industrial capital, but by commercial capital. Holland became a world center of trade. It owned 60% of the world's merchant fleet. It controlled most of the trade traffic in the North and Mediterranean seas.

Wine was produced mainly in France and Spain, but the main wine warehouses were in Holland and Holland traded wine. Timber was mainly harvested in the Baltic countries, but the main timber warehouses were in Holland and Holland supplied Europe with timber. In Holland, up to a thousand ships were built annually, although all the country's products could be exported on one hundred ships. Holland has become a global trade intermediary, all countries traded through Holland on Dutch ships. Holland became the richest country, a banking country. There was more money in Holland than in the rest of Europe. The Amsterdam Bank became a pan-European credit center and provided loans to all states.

The world's first stock exchange was born in Amsterdam, i.e. an exchange where they no longer traded goods, but securities - shares, government bonds. At first, these securities were sold on the commodity exchange, and then the stock exchange became an independent body.

But from the beginning of the 18th century. Holland is gradually losing its global significance. This was explained by the fact that its commercial dominance did not correspond to its industrial potential.

The textile industry, which occupied a leading place in Holland, depended on foreign raw materials, for example, the wool industry - on English wool. When England began to process all the wool itself, the Dutch manufactories were left without work. In the 18th century Heavy industry acquired particular importance in the economy, but for its development in Holland there was neither iron ore nor coal. But the main thing is that Holland transported other people's goods on its ships, and when the owners of these goods began to transport them themselves, having built their own merchant ships, the Dutch had nothing to transport.

In short, the capital accumulated in Holland remained in the sphere of accumulation, in trade, and did not flow into industry, and therefore Holland was defeated in the competition with England and lost its leadership.

A new organization of trade and financial transactions has developed -

transactions on stock exchanges,

A new type of profit has also developed - speculation. On the stock

All kinds of financial and credit transactions were carried out on the exchange:

loans were made, bills of exchange were discounted,

monetary obligations of large banking houses and European

monarchs.

Speculation flourished here no less than in commodity

stock exchange Commodity prices and security rates were influenced by the most

various circumstances and events, including political ones,

Therefore, merchants and financiers needed to receive quick and

detailed information. Agents of trading companies carefully collected

all the news and wrote detailed reports to their patrons. These do-

these were the beginnings of future newspapers.

In Europe in the 16th and first third of the 17th centuries. observing

given a significant increase in prices, conventionally called

ny. The price rise did not take place

evenly across countries and over time. In Spain

in 1601, prices increased almost 4.5 times, in England - 4 times, in

France by the end of the 16th century - 2.5 times, in Italy - twice. At

this, prices for agricultural products rose significantly

to a greater extent than for industrial goods, items of the first

Necessities have risen in price more than luxury goods. Very

it is important that labor prices, i.e. wages, lagged far behind

from rising commodity prices. Thus, in England wages increased

only by 30%, in France by 25%. So the real

wages have fallen dramatically.

is a very complex phenomenon.

and it cannot be associated with the gradual increase in prices that began

in a number of European countries in the second half of the 15th century, when he determined

due to the growth and acceleration of trade turnover, increasing demand for agriculture

agricultural goods due to the increase in the number of

villages in general and urban areas in particular, as well as the gradual

a significant increase in the number of coins in circulation. Sharp and stable

rapid growth was associated in the 16th century. with the import to Europe of large

quantities of gold and especially silver mined by cheap labor

bov in the newly discovered colonies, as a result of which the price decreased

the precious metals themselves. These phenomena made themselves known with all their force

know around the middle of the century. Prices rose faster in those

countries^ which experienced the increase earlier and more strongly

they contain amounts of precious metals, which was associated with the formation

emerging global commodity and money market (Spain, Porto-

Galia, France, the Netherlands, England, Italy, western regions

German Empire). The emergence of a world market contributed to

began to gradually spread to others,

less economically developed countries in Europe.

influenced the economic

the position of different groups and classes of feudal society. In the wood

the landowners who rented out their land did not benefit in the first place.

I like to rent, since the rent has increased greatly due to

growth in prices for agricultural products and significantly exceeded

shala size" of fixed feudal money rent. Finally>

The peasants who paid rent to their lords also benefited.

In the production of industrial goods, we are in a better position

capitalist entrepreneurs began to work because the

the real wages of hired workers increased while

rising prices for goods. The merchants also benefited, sharing with the enterprises

employers, the surplus value produced by the worker, and the ex^

broad layers exploited as buyers and creditors

small artisans and artisans.

Broad sections of the population suffered: the peasants

those who ran small-scale farms that did not produce for the market and had to

earners often work as farm laborers or engage in auxiliary crafts

artisanal nature, as well as those peasants who paid feo-

long-term rent by products or non-fixed rent. Lost

those nobles, and they were the majority, who received from their lands

residents had a fixed monetary feudal rent, had no significant

significant domain possessions and did not conduct their own farming,

designed for the market.

The city lost from, first of all, widespread

certain layers of the population who lived on wages and small trade

producers and workshop foremen, nominally independent, but

in fact, already working for buyers and manufacturers.

Thus contributed to the expropriation of small

who is the commodity producer both in the city and in the countryside. Marx summary

summarized the consequences as follows: .

Everywhere there is a decrease in wages and an increase in capitalism

income, the gap between rent and feudal rent

that led to the strengthening of class antagonisms to the exacerbation of class

owl fight. Between the lord - feudal owner and

peasant-holder intensifies the struggle for land, the struggle for

transformation of feudal holding into free small property

ness. The struggle for wages begins between labor and capital

fee. The outcome of this struggle, which lasted for almost three centuries,

depended on the specific balance of class forces and was decided in each

treat the country differently.

You can also find the information you are interested in in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form:

More on the topic PRICE REVOLUTION AND ITS SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES:

1. 8. 4. Nominal and real GDP. Price indices. GDP deflator. Consumer price and producer price indices.
2. CHAPTER 12. There is no bread, but a lot of shoe polish. On lower price limits, price ceilings and other methods of interfering with market prices

The most important consequence of the discovery and colonization of new lands was the “price revolution,” which gave a powerful impetus to the initial accumulation of capital in Europe and accelerated the formation of the capitalist structure in the economy. This “revolution” was expressed in an unusually rapid increase during the 16th century. prices for agricultural and industrial goods. If before the 16th century. prices were basically stable, then for 70 years - from the 30s of the 16th century. and by the end of the century - they increased 2 - 4 times. 74

Contemporaries associated such price movements either with a large influx of precious metals into Europe, or with their leakage. However, the real cause of the “price revolution” was the fall in the value of precious metals as a commodity. It contributed to the enrichment of the industrial bourgeoisie that was emerging in this era and the impoverishment of manufacturing workers. The standard of living of wage workers declined as rising prices for agricultural products and consumer goods led to a fall in real incomes. The “price revolution” contributed to the accelerated enrichment of the wealthy part of the peasantry, the formation of the rural bourgeoisie, since the real wages of agricultural workers decreased, and with the fall in the purchasing power of money, the real amounts of cash dues or rents collected by landowners decreased,

prices for agricultural products rose. At the same time, the feudal lords who received a fixed cash rent suffered seriously.

The result of the “price revolution” was a general deterioration in the economic situation of feudal lords and wage workers and a strengthening of the positions of the bourgeoisie. Thus, it accelerated the formation of a capitalist economy and the fall of the feudal system.

Navigation made it possible to establish stable economic ties between the most remote parts of the world. Colonial possessions were used as the economic periphery of European capital and served as the basis for the expansion of foreign trade, which became global.

Consequently, there was an intensification of new trends in the economic policy of European absolutism, which acquired a pronounced mercantilist character. The ruling dynasties in Spain, France, and England encouraged trade, industry, shipping, and colonial expansion by all available means. Mercantilism was generated by developing capitalism, but it also met the interests of the nobility. National industry and trade provided the means to maintain the feudal state, and therefore to maintain the social dominance of the nobles. 75

The opening of new trade routes and previously unknown countries and continents, the establishment of stable connections between Europe and other parts of the world in a relatively short time allowed European countries to acquire enormous resources.

The great geographical discoveries created the basis for the emergence of the international division of labor, the world economy and the market. The volume and range of trade has increased.

In the struggle to conquer new markets, trading companies began to form that regulated the trade of merchants with a certain region of the world. This turned out to be not enough for success in competition with other countries, and gradually merchant capital began to unite into trading corporations. The most powerful of the united companies were the East India Companies in the Netherlands and England, which managed to monopolize the Indian market.

The result of the Great Geographical Discoveries was that already in the 16th century. Commodity and stock exchanges emerged in Antwerp - centers of world trade in goods and securities. Italian cities fell into decay, new centers of world trade rose - Lisbon, Seville and especially Antwerp, which became a world trade and financial center. 76
An important consequence of the great geographical discoveries was the so-called “price revolution”. It was expressed in an unusually rapid increase during the 16th century. prices for agricultural and industrial goods. If before the 16th century. prices were basically stable, changing only during periods of wars and natural disasters, then from the 30s to the end of the 16th century. they grew in Spain 4 times, and for agricultural products - even 5 times, in France - on average 2.3 times, in England - 2.5 times, in Germany - 2 times, and on average in Western Europe - 2-2.5 times.
However, the real reason for the “price revolution” was not the increase in the quantity of monetary metals, but the fall in their value. K. Marx pointed out that the cheapening of gold and silver was due to the fact that precious metals were extracted from extremely abundant deposits by the cheap labor of serfs and slaves, and even by simple robbery. The conditions for the production of all other goods generally remained the same. Equivalent to the same amount of goods in the 16th century. there was a much larger quantity of gold and silver than before. Therefore, there was a sharp jump in prices. First of all and to the greatest extent, prices for agricultural products increased - primarily for bread and other food products. From the middle of the 16th century. price increases became general, but manufactured products and industrial raw materials still rose in price less than basic necessities.
The “price revolution” had the most important socio-economic significance. On the one hand, there was “...a depreciation of wages and land rent, and on the other, an increase in industrial profits.” Therefore, the “price revolution” contributed to the enrichment of the industrial bourgeoisie that was emerging in this era and the impoverishment of the proletariat. The living standards of wage workers fell sharply as rising prices for agricultural products and consumer goods led to a fall in real incomes. Thus, in England, prices for goods increased on average by 155%, and wages of hired workers - by only 30%. The merchant bourgeoisie also profited from the “price revolution,” as conditions were created favorable for speculative transactions and making speculative profits.
The “price revolution” also contributed to the accelerated enrichment of the wealthy part of the peasantry and the formation of the rural bourgeoisie, since the real wages of agricultural workers decreased, and with the fall in the purchasing power of money, the real amounts of cash rent or rent collected by landowners decreased, while prices for agricultural products grew fabulously.
At the same time, as a result of rising prices, the feudal lords who received rent in money, the amount of which was stable, seriously lost.
Thus, the socio-economic results of the “price revolution” consisted of a general deterioration in the social position of the feudal classes and the emerging wage workers and the rise of the capitalist class. The “Price Revolution” was of great importance: it accelerated the formation of a capitalist economy and the fall of the feudal system.

You can also find information of interest in the Sci.House electronic library. Use the search form:

A turning point in international trade in the 17th century

The weakening of the military power of the Ottoman Empire and the decline of the Timariot (military-feudal) system became the topic of numerous works by historians both in Turkey itself and abroad, who sought to give their explanation of the reasons for the decline of the great power of the Middle Ages.

Historians conventionally called the “price revolution” a significant increase in prices in Europe in the 16th - first half of the 17th centuries.

The most important reason for the sharp jump in price movements was the influx of cheap American gold and silver, looted by the conquistadors and mined by slave labor. According to experts, in 1493 European reserves of silver were estimated at 7 thousand tons, and gold at 550 tons. By 1544, they increased, respectively, to 9 thousand tons and 815.6 tons. In 1600, silver reserves were already estimated at 21.4 thousand tons, and gold - 1.2 thousand tons. In other words, during the century, gold reserves more than doubled, and silver tripled. As a result of the influx of cheap precious metal, gold and silver themselves became cheaper. Since the conditions for the production of other goods generally remained the same, then in exchange for the same amount of goods it was necessary to pay from now on a larger amount of gold or silver, i.e., a higher price. “If the value of the measure of value itself decreases,” wrote K. Marx, “this is primarily manifested in a change in the price of those goods that are exchanged for precious metal...”.

In the early 80s of the 16th century. From Genoa and other Italian cities, Spanish reals, minted from American silver, began to be exported to Turkey, and from there to Iran. The question of the “price revolution” in the Levant was first studied by the French historian F. Braudel. After the publication of his book, Turkish historians became interested in price movements - M. Akdag, H. Inalcik, O. L. Barkan and others. Material on a number of regions of Turkey, collected by M. Akdag, allows us to draw some conclusions about price movements in the Ottoman Empire. True, the available data are not entirely comparable. They relate only to individual years and are given, as a rule, without taking into account seasonal fluctuations. Therefore, trends in price movements are not as clear as when using averages over several years. However, summarizing information about several areas, we can definitely say that the trend towards rising prices had already emerged by the middle of the 16th century, but until the 80s the growth rate was relatively low, later they increased sharply, reaching its peak in the first decade of the 17th century.

Food prices grew especially rapidly, and in some years they rose to very high levels. Thus, a keel (1 keel is a measure of bulk solids, equal in Istanbul to approximately 25 kg (for wheat) of wheat in 1607 cost 160 akçe, and a sheep was sold for 560 akçe. To give an idea of ​​the price movements at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. was more complete, let us compare the data given by M. Akdag with later information. During the 18th century, the price of wheat in Thessaloniki - one of the largest grain export centers - and other agricultural products rose 2.5 times, but real grain prices ( taking into account the depreciation of akche) remained at the same level - about 100-120 akche. Thus, grain prices in the 18th century were at the level reached by the beginning of the 17th century. Data collected by another Turkish historian O. L. Barkan are more reliable. based on the analysis of annual estimates of large religious and cultural centers (imarets) in Istanbul, Edirne and Bursa. However, this information does not reflect the situation in the provinces, because in the mentioned cities, which enjoyed the status of capitals, the influence of government measures to regulate food prices was more strongly felt. . In conditions of extreme instability of harvests in the Mediterranean zone, comparison of prices for some food products for individual years cannot provide a sufficiently complete picture of price movements. Therefore, O. L. Barkan’s attempt to calculate the cost of living index in the 16th-17th centuries deserves attention. Although he only took into account the costs of food and the purchase of firewood, his data can be used as a completely reliable indicator of rising prices for agricultural products in the largest cities of the empire.

When calculating the cost of living index, the researcher took as a basis data on purchases of food products in the Suleymaniye Imaret for 1585/1586. Considering the range of goods and their volume unchanged, he determined the total amount of food expenses for individual years for which information on agricultural prices was preserved. goods. The data presented confirm the previously noted trend towards a rapid rise in prices at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries, which was replaced by relative stabilization from the second decade of the 17th century. Based on the calculations made, it can be stated that food prices in the largest cities increased by the beginning of the 17th century. more than 6 times compared to the level of the late 15th and early 16th centuries. A comparison of data for Istanbul, Edirne, and Bursa also shows that the general price index generally coincided with the movement of prices for grain, meat, salt and firewood.

Information about handicraft production in the Ottoman Empire is more scarce, however, it can be noted that handicraft and craft products rose in price less than agricultural products. Thus, the price of a yard of cotton fabric increased 6-8 times, linen fabric - 4-5 times. During the 16th century. copper rose in price from 6-7 akche per okka (1 okka is a unit of weight equal to 1382 g) to 30-35 akche, unprocessed iron - from 3 akche per okka to 15 akche, okka soap from 3 akche to 22 akche. White wax, sold at the end of the 15th century. at 13 akche per okka, by 1595 it cost 44 akche, and at the beginning of the 17th century. - 60-70 acce. The wages of construction workers and day laborers increased more or less in proportion to the increase in retail prices for food and handicrafts, apparently, thanks to the forced regulation of prices in cities, the government was able to minimize the impact of the “price revolution” on the urban population and maintain relative calm in the cities.

The dynamics of price increases in Turkey show that one of the main reasons for this phenomenon was the influx of American gold and silver. The beginning of the export of Spanish reals to the Levant precisely coincides with the moment of a sharp jump in prices in the markets of Istanbul and other cities of the Ottoman Empire. The resale of cheap reals, thalers and other European, mostly silver, currencies opened up an easy way for many merchants to get rich. According to Antonio Serra, until 1613, Venice annually sent 5 million silver coins to the Levant. At the end of the 16th century. many French merchants switched to exporting money instead of textiles and other industrial products. According to a report presented to the king, in 1614 about 7 million ecus were exported from Marseille to the countries of the Levant. Already at the end of the 16th century. foreign silver coins flooded the Turkish market and caused a significant depreciation of the Akce. This is evidenced by a comparison of the exchange rate of the acce and the Venetian real, whose purchasing power changed little in the 16th century. If for the period from the beginning of the 16th century. Before 1582, the official exchange rate of the acche against the real fell by only 9%, then by 1595 it fell by half, and by 1609 - more than 2.5 times compared to the level of 1582. On the “black market” “The cost of acce decreased by more than 4 times. The government succeeded in compulsory regulation of prices in cities.

The appearance of American gold and silver in Europe had another consequence for the Ottoman Empire. Because price increases were uneven across countries and over time, the cost of living in Eastern Europe and the Levant turned out to be much lower than in Western Europe. From the middle of the 16th century. there is a significant increase in demand for cheap agricultural products from the Levant and the Balkan Peninsula. Increased demand undoubtedly contributed to higher prices for exported goods. Therefore, prices for grain and other agricultural products rise much earlier than the country begins to feel the impact of inflation.

There was another reason for the rise in prices long before the depreciation of the acce. According to calculations by O. L. Barkan, during the period from 1520 to 1580, the population of Anatolia grew by 55.9%, and the number of inhabitants in a number of sanjaks of Rumelia (i.e. in the Balkans) - by 71%. During the same period, the population of the 12 largest cities of the Ottoman State (excluding Istanbul, Aleppo and Damascus) increased by 90%.

Equally rapid population growth was apparently characteristic of the entire Mediterranean region. According to calculations by F. Braudel, the number of inhabitants in it during the 16th century. increased from 30-35 million to 60-70 million people. True, calculations were made, as a rule, on the basis of information from the fiscal and therefore higher figures at the end of the 16th century. can be explained by the improvement of the tax apparatus. In fact, this period probably saw a significant increase in the population of the entire Mediterranean region, including the Ottoman Empire.

Firstly, one should take into account the low initial data of the 14th-15th centuries. As you know, the “Black Death” (plague pandemic) in the 14th century. killed about a quarter of Europe's population - approximately 24 million people.

Secondly, observed from the 14th to the beginning of the 17th century. a certain warming of the climate in the Mediterranean zone" contributed to a certain extent to the improvement of the living conditions of the agricultural population (drying of swamps, a decrease in the number of floods, a slight reduction in colds and malaria).

Major military operations ceased in the Anatolian and Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire. The main theater of military operations moved to the outlying areas. This circumstance undoubtedly contributed to the revival of economic life and faster population growth in rural areas and cities.

What is important in this case is not so much the numbers showing how quickly the population increased, but the fact that population growth was not accompanied by noticeable changes in traditional farming and transport technology. Meanwhile, the possibilities for extensive development of Turkey's agriculture were also very limited. Ottoman legislative acts of the early 16th century. indicate intensified conflicts over land, which was obviously associated with the depletion of the available land fund. The last circumstance seems, at first glance, strange, especially if we take into account the very low population density of Anatolia in the Ottoman era. However, one should take into account the fact that a significant part of the inhabitants of Asia Minor were nomads who, needing vast pastures for their livestock, seriously interfered with the plowing of the wastelands.

The appearance of a “surplus” population was supposed to have a negative impact on the economic life of the country, primarily on the position of the peasantry. Evidence of this is the parcelization of peasant plots (chifts). The scale of this process, which unfolded in the 16th century, is evidenced by the study of the English historian M. Cook. After analyzing data from Ottoman registries for the Tokat region (central Anatolia), he found that many chieftas recorded under one person were in fact divided among several owners, usually brothers. Of the 549 rayats noted in the registers of the second half of the 16th century, 69% were classified as landless, renting land (jaba), 21% had half a chiefta as single (mujerred) and only 10% owned entire plots. The limited availability of land suitable for cultivation led to the expulsion of the surplus population from the villages. These “extra” people, who received the name “gurbet taifesi” or “levendov” in Ottoman documents, partly moved to cities, partly found a place for themselves among the servants of provincial feudal lords, and partly turned into robbers and marauders, the number of which in the 16th century. increases sharply. In any case, they were not associated with agricultural production, but consumed agricultural products. The more their numbers grew, the more acute the food problem became.

In the 50s of the 16th century. The port often allowed the export of grain to Western European countries, and the 60s were marked by a steady decline in exports. Since the 70s, there has been an almost constant shortage of bread in Turkish cities. Judging by the reports of the Venetian ambassadors, in 1574 bread prices in Istanbul were almost as high as in Venice; shortages were felt throughout the country, especially in Asia Minor, where people were dying of hunger. Food shortages were noted in September 1575, April 1576, March 1578, September 1580. A similar situation was repeated in August 1585, February 1586, March and September 1587, February 1588. and in 1589. Such a tense food situation in the capital reflects the general situation in the country and helps to understand the reasons for the rapid rise in prices and rising costs of living.

Information about handicraft production in the Ottoman Empire led to serious financial difficulties for the Ottoman government. It turned out that prices rose faster than the money supply increased. Therefore, the available reserves of gold and silver were not enough to cover the ever-increasing expenses. In an effort to replenish the treasury, the Ottoman government resorted to defacement of coins and then lowering the standard of silver coins. The issue of the damaged coin provided the treasury with valuable metal for some time, but could not solve the difficulties facing the government. Moreover, the use of the damaged coin led to a breakdown in public finances and seriously complicated the internal political situation.

The impact of the “price revolution” on different classes and strata of Ottoman society was varied. The rise in prices for agricultural products benefited, first of all, large feudal landowners associated with the market, especially with foreign trade. As the French historian M. Aimar notes, in the first half of the 16th century. Among those who sold grain to merchants from Dubrovnik, there were peasants. Representatives of the second trading city, negotiating with the Porte, insisted that the agreement would allow part of the purchases to be made from the delli poveri, that is, from the reia. But since 1552 this is just an “old custom”. From that time on, the main sellers were members of the Sultan's family, pashas, ​​and rulers of the sanjako.

Small Timariot feudal lords, who received a fixed (in monetary terms) income, lost from the “price revolution.” While prices on the market, as well as government taxes, have increased sharply, the amount of revenue for the maintenance of the sipahi, regulated by law, has remained at the same level. In the end, the military expenses that lay on the shoulders of the Timariots were no longer covered by the taxes collected from the Timar. The sipahi lost interest in the fiefs, their morale and desire to fight also steadily declined. Those groups of the urban population who received a fixed monetary remuneration - officials, janissaries, hired workers, day laborers - lost from the “price revolution”. However, thanks to the introduction of fixed food prices, the damage they suffered was apparently small. The peasants who did not produce for the market suffered the most. Lacking large inventories of grain and other agricultural products, they were unable to take advantage of favorable market conditions and bore the burden of increased taxes. The country's rulers saw a way out of the severe financial crisis in which the Ottoman state found itself in increasing feudal exploitation of the masses and especially the peasantry. The rapid increase in the share of money rent had serious consequences for agriculture. Among Turkologists there is no single point of view regarding the forms of feudal rent in the 16th century. Therefore, let us turn to the available information about the taxation system within the Timariot system of land tenure.

The land rent received by the feudal class was divided into two parts: one share was assigned to the sipahi, the other to the fisk. Both parts acted both in the form of labor (corvee labor), and in the form of in-kind deliveries and cash payments. In the absence of large-scale farming among feudal lords, labor rent was not widespread. Moreover, Ottoman legislation provided for the possibility of paying off corvée. The owner of a full chief was obliged to pay 22 akche, those who had a smaller allotment were 16 or 9 akche. Natural duties, and above all tithes (ushr, ashar), were of no small importance. Tithes were levied on all agricultural production of the raiyat. The traditional gifts that peasants were supposed to bring to the feudal lord on holidays were also natural. As N.M. Gurevich correctly noted, the fact that natural supplies of peasants are calculated in monetary terms should not be taken as evidence of the commutation of food rent. The monetary equivalent indicated in the Ottoman registers was necessary for the authorities to determine the amount of income of the timar.

However, part of the rent received by the sipahi was in the form of money. The monetary part of the rent was collected in the form of taxes such as resm-i chift (for Muslims) and ispenje (for Christians). According to Ottoman law, the maximum land tax for a family owning an entire chiefta was 22 akçe for Muslims and 25 akçe for Christians. Monetary fees also included taxes on domestic animals such as pigs and sheep, as well as a category of fees under the general name “badu hava” (fee for the bride, fee for a land document, fines for certain offenses, etc.) . Based on the aforementioned calculations by V. Mutafchieva, the share of cash payments by the beginning of the 16th century. should have been about 20-30%. In this case, the contributions in kind would be equal to approximately 50% of the total rent appropriated by the sipahi.

The amount of state taxes levied on peasant farms is more difficult to determine. Strictly regulating revenues in favor of the sipahi, the state did not establish the exact amounts of fees and duties in favor of the fiscus. Until the end of the 16th century. The Porte more often resorted to labor and cash forms of rent than to natural rent. Many documents have been preserved that report on the rayats that were obliged to participate in the repair of fortresses, the protection of roads, work in mines, and serve in auxiliary military units. However, the fulfillment of labor duties, as a rule, was assigned in the Ottoman Empire to special groups of the dependent population, which received the title “paradises with special assignments” in historical literature. A characteristic feature of the position of these groups was complete or partial exemption from taxes and natural supplies to the state. Perhaps this circumstance explains the extreme paucity of information about food rent in favor of the fiscus among documents of the 16th century.

An important place in the collections of the treasury was occupied by the poll tax from non-Muslims - jizya. Another type of cash payments from the peasantry were taxes, known as “emergency”. The oldest form of such fees was the avariz tax. It is believed that it existed during the time of Mehmed Fatih, but more specific information about it dates back to the reign of Bayezid II (1481-1512). Under Bayezid and his successor Selim I (1512-1520), the avariz was levied at the rate of 20 akçe per tax unit. Under Suleiman Kanuni (1520-1566), the tax was collected quite often, although irregularly. In the middle of the 16th century. it turns into a regular collection and is equal to 50-60 akche, and at the end of the century, due to the devaluation of the akche, its size increases sharply - to 160 akche in 1592, 250 in 1593, 500 in 1597.

Since, with the rapid growth of state taxes, the size of the sipahi's income was “frozen” at the previous level, the share of the sipahi in the total volume of feudal rent received from the peasants decreased sharply. So, at the beginning of the 16th century. the vassals of Rumelia enjoyed approximately 50-70% of all levies from the rural population, and at the end of the century - only 20-25%." The same, undoubtedly, was the trend in Anatolia. As a result of the increase in the size of state taxes, both the total value of feudal rent and and the share of cash collections from the peasant family. Even assuming that the sipahis received their share of rent in products at the end of the 16th century, the share of natural rent will still be lower due to the sharp increase in the amount of cash taxes in favor of the fiscus.

The predominance of monetary payments during the period under review cannot be considered an unconditional indicator of a high level of commodity production. As shown above, the increasing role of money resulted from the peculiarities of the socio-economic development of Ottoman society and was dictated by the increased needs of the feudal lords. Therefore, the Turkish version of rent commutation did not stimulate the development of productive forces in agriculture. Moreover, it intensified the ruin of the peasantry. Due to the narrowness of the domestic market, the lack of significant inventories of grain and other agricultural products, the peasant could not take advantage of the increased demand for agricultural products. A large number of peasant products could appear on the market only in the fall, after the harvest. However, local needs were small, and transporting grain and other crop products over long distances was unprofitable. The appearance of a large number of agricultural products on the local market changed market conditions for a short time, leading to a predominance of supply over demand, and peasants were forced to sell their crops at a cheap price.

Finding himself unable to fulfill his obligations, the rayat resorted to the help of a moneylender. Usury operations became widespread. Some rural residents found themselves in debt bondage, mortgaging their houses, livestock and land; the process of peasants losing their previous rights to land and turning them into powerless holders accelerated.

Ottoman authors and European travelers of the late 16th - early 17th centuries. They report a mass flight of peasants from villages, empty villages and abandoned fields, and frequent years of famine. Although from the second decade of the 17th century. There is a certain stability in price movements; agriculture could not recover from the consequences of the “price revolution” for a long time. In 1640, Kochibey wrote: “Since, my dear lord, your servants, raya, have become extremely poor and fled from the villages, then if a war were to happen soon, it would be too difficult to wage.”

M. Cook discovered two Sultan fermans dating from the 30s of the 17th century. One of them, concerning Western Anatolia, noted the decline in the income of most Timars and Zeamets and ordered the Sipahi's income records to be revised, reducing them by a third of the amount. From another ferman it appears that in Central Anatolia the situation was even worse. Judging by the results of checking the timars, the raya was ruined in 90 cases out of 100. Therefore, the Sultan ordered two timars to be counted as one.

The decline of agriculture and the weakening of local authorities contributed to the strengthening of the position of nomads, who began to displace peasants in the interior regions of Anatolia. There is a gradual reduction in the number of settlements in Asia Minor. According to the calculations of W. Hütteroth, from the end of the 16th to the middle of the 19th century. in the Konya region, up to 60% of villages in the mountains and up to 90% in the plains disappeared.

Widespread dissatisfaction of the popular masses with the strengthening of feudal oppression, arbitrariness and violence by representatives of the ruling class resulted in a powerful social conflict that shook the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. All of Anatolia became the arena of numerous peasant uprisings, which in official documents were called the “Jelali Troubles.” The brutal repressions unleashed on the Dzhelalians did not bring peace. The ruling elite had to make certain concessions. In October 1610, the Sultan issued a ferman, called the “decree of justice.” It drew the attention of local authorities to the difficult situation of the rayats and ordered to reduce levies and limit the arbitrariness of moneylenders.

Obviously, the government itself had to reconsider its tax policy. In his second risal, Kochibey instructed the new sultan: “Taking 5 kurus from each house of the raya avariz is a lot. This is burdensome for the poor raya. My dear sir, based on ancient laws, 300 akcha should be charged. If you maintain order, then heaven will pray for you and there will be prosperity in the country and there will be no violence.” Obviously, the advice had its effect: despite the continuing decline in the value of the acche, the amount of tax throughout almost the entire 17th century. practically did not increase. Another new point in the Porte's tax policy was an increase in the share of natural supplies. Already from the 20s of the 17th century. There are cases of collection of grain disclaimers. Forced confiscation of food supplies from peasants at fixed prices (“sursat”, “nuzul zahiresn”, “ishtira”) becomes important. From the end of the 16th century. labor obligations in favor of the state extend to the entire dependent population. There is also an increase in corvée labor, especially in the private estates of large feudal lords. In general, we can talk about a new trend towards reducing the share of cash collections or rent recommutation. This trend, which appeared in the 17th century, can be traced in the 18th - early 19th centuries.

Consideration of the consequences of the “price revolution” in Turkey allows us to draw some conclusions. There is no doubt that as the productive forces develop, the sphere of commodity-money relations expands. However, within one historical era, the connection between the degree of socio-economic development and the scale of monetary circulation was, apparently, not so direct and rigid. The level of monetary exchange was determined not only by the state of the productive forces of society, but also by many other reasons. Thus, Ottoman society of the 16th century. was at a transitional stage of development from early to developed feudalism. However, the impact of external factors (the transition to firearms, the “price revolution” in Europe, the growing demand for agricultural products of the Levant countries), as well as internal ones (the revival of economic life, population growth) contributed to a significant increase in the role of money. This was reflected, in particular, in premature attempts to commutate land rent. The sharp increase in the share of cash payments turned out to be a short-term phenomenon, but it caused a serious shock to the foundations of social life.

Thus, the main feature of the turning point in international trade in the 17th century was the “price revolution” - a significant increase in prices in Europe in the 16th - first half of the 17th centuries, which was caused by the influx of cheap American gold and silver looted by the conquistadors and mined by slave labor. This resulted in upward trends in prices, which peaked in the first decade of the 17th century, and as a consequence, this led to a fall in the cost of living in Eastern Europe and the Levant. Population growth in the Mediterranean region and in the Ottoman Empire, food shortages, lack of significant grain reserves and inflation led to a massive exodus of peasants from villages and a reduction in the number of settlements in Asia Minor. The strengthening of feudal oppression and violence of the ruling class resulted in social conflict (“Jalali Troubles”). All this led to the weakening of the power of the Ottoman Empire and the decline of its role in international trade. And the “price revolution” had important socio-economic consequences for Europe. It had a profound influence on all European countries and the economic situation of the classes of feudal society and became the most important source of the initial accumulation of capital.