Turkish threats and plundering in the Batthyány-estates
The drama unknown
The person of Memhet, Turkish banner bearer (= bayraktar), is unknown to this day, just like thousands of his kind in the Hungarian territory under Turkish rule(1) in the 16th and 17th centuries. As far as I know, there are only two remaining letters of Memhet in the Batthyány family archives. (2) The addressees, Ozvad Miklós and Bükvicz Mihály, are also unknown. They appear on the stage of history only for a glimpse in these two short letters. After all these sources reveal more about these persons and this historical period than a detailed biography. The letters of Memhet are unique as they threaten Ozvad Miklós that Memhet will sell his son to the janissaries. Among the thousands of letters of the Batthyány (3) archives, there aren’t any that contain a similarly unique threat.
The first letter is addressed to Ozvad Miklós: „This letter shall be given into the hands of Ozvad Mikljos!4 I, Memhet bayraktar5of Kanisany6 want to inform you that I have your son. Believe me that if you do not bring the ransom of Bükvicz Mihálj’s wife while the wagon is here, I am surely selling your son to the janissaries. Tell it to Baloghj Péter or the Emperor, I do not care. You are his guarantor, and I want it [the money] from you. If you do not bring it right now, you can bring even 100 Thalers later I do not want it. Understand this thing! Kanisánj, Anno 1641. Idem qui supra.”7
The second: „This letter shall be given into the hands of Bükvicz Mihálj! I, Memhet bayraktar of Kanisany. You are an insincere man, you Bükvicz Mihálj, you may know that I did not give your wife back as a present [for free]. Believe me that you and your home will not remain [intact]. Because Balogh Péter did not send the guarantor, but you. Now, the son of the bail is here. I am getting it [the ransom] from him, and if you do not pay the bail, you will suffer damages to your home. Kanisanj, Anno 1641.”8
The two letters are about a typical 17th-century Hungarian „crime story” of kidnapping, ransom, and blackmail. So much so that there is an analogy:
„In October 1649, Batthyány Ádám captured one of his soldiers and another named Bejthe György, giving service in Alsólendva because they left Kanizsa without paying their ransom and left their fellows in surety.”(9)
As the persons involved are unknown, the context had to be analysed. The style and types of letters of Turkish sipahis10 reveal a lot about the authors themselves. It also needs consideration whether to take seriously the threats of Memhet and how the ransom slavery worked in that period. But the most electrifying question is how to interpret the strange and unique menace:„…I am selling your son to the Janissaries…”
Anatomy of letters of Turkish sipahis: threats, deals, and compromise
The Ottoman sipahis sent several letters to the lords, captains, vice captains, or judges of the village of certain territories. In case of Transdanubia (= Dunántúl), the addressee was frequently Batthyány I. Ádám (1610-1659), the captain-general of the fortresses positioned against Kanizsa and an aristocrat of the counties Vas and Zala. If the addressee was a powerful person, then the aim of letters was often complaining or chaffering. But many times letters were sent to less significant persons like representatives or judges of a certain village, in this case, the manner was impolite, and the goal was to intimidate them and force the community into submission. The style and content of letters were defined by the position and political power of the addressee and the sender. The following examples prove the contrast:
- The addressee is a judge; the topic is the subjugation of the village: „We, Amet alaybegh […] come here to deal with your ispahia [about your obligatory services and tax]. If you do not come here, then the same will happen to you as to village Sztankócz, the army will go there and your village will be burnt, you will be cut down or sold […] Datum Kanizsa, 1646.”11
- The addressee is Batthyány I. Ádám, the topic is complaining: „Given my letter in no time to the hands of my lord and friend Battyani Adam living in Nimet Uj vár! I wish Your Majesty every good for your honour and your soul’s salvation, given by God who created heaven and earth! God give you and your every relative improvement in this world and salvation! Amen. […] Amhet alaybegh living in Kopan […] in 1641. die. Feb. 2.”12 In this formal and polite letter, Amhet wrote about a village which was in Royal Hungary but was subjugated by the Turks. In this way, it paid taxes to both Hungarians and the Ottomans. He also asked Batthyány not to do harm to this village and not ask them for more services. In this case, Amhet did not have humanitarian intentions but wanted to ensure that the village could pay him tax as well.
Several letters aimed at the subjugation of villages. Here, there is the opportunity to analyse one compact group of letters sent to some villages in County Vas.13 These letters can be divided into four groups based on the intensity of threat: (A) it is weak or the letter is rather imperative, (B) the threat is strong, (C) the sipahi makes an attempt to motivate positively, (D) a special type of letter:
A.
- „Who you are, judges and villagers of Kováczent14, I, Ibrahim aga, command you to come to me immediately, seeing my letter […] and three or four old men make a deal with me [on your tax and services] […]P. S.15[…] if you do not come in ten days, do not do it, but you know […]”
- „Who you are judges and villagers of Vadiáncz16[…] come to me and find only Szali ispahia [= do not negotiate with anybody else].”
- „Who you are, judges and villagers of Salamoncz(17) […] you are my serfs, and after getting my letter sent by the villagers of Pucznicz, come to me. […] if you do not, you know what will happen to you caused by yourselves. […] Ameth alaybegh”
- „I want to inform you, old earless18judge of Keresztur […] four or five old men of you come to me to make a deal […] Ahmet aga living in Kanisa”19
- „I, Mehmeth of Kanisa […] who you are judges and villagers of Pucnicz20[…] be there at me in Kanisa by next Sunday, if you want to be in peace […] P. S.Bring 4 ako21wine!”
- „Who you are, judges and villagers of Torkocz,22I want to inform you that the alaybegh of Kanisa is your hereditary lord and hereditary owner of Hoszufalu,23Kutas,24SzentMárton,25Márton falúa26[…] come to me immediately as your former lord Czalok Haszan aga died […] I will make a deal with you properly, if you do not come, you will see the consequences, you know […]”
- „We, Veli begh, janissary begh of the magnificent Turkish sultan in Székes feiervár, you judges and villagers of Kibörsöny,27 Kis and Nagy köczkö,28 Kapolna,29 Miske,30 Kapolna, Dömök,31 Sitke,32Hőgyész,33Sarkány,34Magos35as you did not give the sultan’s service […]bring 3-3 Forints […]”
The virtual and textual reality of the letters above can be compared to real life: three men were kidnapped from Szalamoncz before the village submitted.36 In 1626, Hosszúfalu, Kéthely, Kisfalud, Talapatka, and Háromház were plundered, and 172 villagers were captured. Kis and Nagy- Köcsk, both of the two Kápolna, Miske, Sitke, and Hőgyész were also looted, the first four of them very seriously.37 However, these raids happened after 1641; for example, Köcsk was sacked in 1646. Therefore, the villages called upon by the sipahis were lucky in some degree, as their sipahis were quite patient in the short term, at least.
B.
- „Hurmis aga of Kanisa, command you people of Borosocz38[…] that seeing my letter come to me with people of Sulincz 39If you do not come, you cannot say that I did not tell you will take you I do to you the same as to Sulincz. Send two or three old men to make a deal with them. […]”
- „Who you are, judges and villagers of Goricz (40), you know that I am your lord after the invincible Turkish sultan. […] I will send [troops] to plunder your village as I sent you a message, but you neglected […] I am not fond of your losses, it would be better to make a deal with me […]Ibrahim aga of infantry men of Kanisa.”41
- „Who you are, judges and villagers of Poczincz42[…] If you love [to keep] your heads, then do not dare do anything else seeing my letter but send a wagon of hay with six villagers on foot. […] Memhet aga”
- „Who you are, judges and villagers of Sulnicz, I command you to immediately come to me, seeing my letter and the guarantors, give me the ransom of the prisoner […] If you love your heads, come to me immediately […] Ahmet alaybegh”
- „Who you are, judges and villagers of Viduncz43I command you […] to come to me immediately […] do not do anything else if you love your heads or you will suffer damages […] old Haszan aga of Kanisa.”
- „Who you are judges and villagers of Pesznárocz (44) […]come to me[…]bring your summa (45) which you are in debt, do not do anything else if you love your heads or you will suffer damages […]Ahmet alaybegh.”
- „Who you are, judges and villagers of Szent márton […] I inherited you after the death of Czalok Haszan aga […] immediately come to Comár46to Sanko Boldisar […] you will not be harmed […] if youcomelisteningtogood words, it is good, if not, you have to come anyway, but it will be harder when yourselves, wives, children, cattle will be preyed onand captured, if you do not want this, come to me […]”
Here, there is also an opportunity to take a look at the reality behind the letters: 38 persons from Sulinc were captured, and two of them were killed before the village submitted. In 1640, eight villagers were kidnapped from Gorica. 44 villagers were captured, and five were killed in Vidoncz before its submission in 1640. (47) These villagers well understood the phrase often appearing in the letters, “Do not do anything else if you love your heads or suffer damages!”
C.
- „We, Amhet alaybegh of Kanisa […] in the last times I gave my letter of guarantee to my serfs of Moráncz,48to come to Kanisa to make a deal with me (49) […] I promise them for my strong, genteel Turkish honour that if they are obedient, then I will be their protector lord too. Assuring this, I am confirming this letter with my customary seal. […]”
- „You people of Kovaczocz,50as my pledge and warrant with you, to come to me on the day of Saint George with people of Moczkocz (51) and Kustánocz (52) by wagon and bring gifts to me, and I will make a good deal with you and do not fear anybody, nobody will harm you. […] Ibrahim aga”
- „You who are villagers of Kováczonc53[…] you sent Densán János and Matuz Ambrus, who gave the sultan’s tax, so I let them go in peace and do not fear me in the future […] If you are obedient will protect you […]Ibrahim aga of the infantry of Kanisa.”
- „You who are judges and villagers ofGenavla54[…] come to me immediately with wagons and on foot with others from the neighbouring villages […] bring gifts of butter, other things, summa […] bring them to me, do not do anything else as nobody does harm to you […] Me, Mehmet younger brother of guide Amhet.”
As far as it is known, the identified villages mentioned that these letters were not attacked. So they probably paid their tax properly, and their sipahi really protected them, or just did not need to loot them.
D.
In this special type of letter, the Ottoman writers proclaim that a village submitted to them; therefore, they will not be harmed, and the villagers, their wives, children, and cattle will not suffer damages, and they can come and go freely (55)
The reality behind Memhet’s letters
The letters above reveal the political power structure and bitter reality of life behind them and highlight the significance of the threats in Memhet’s two letters. It can be supposed that the addressees of them were the villagers of the Batthyány estates. Considering the fact that Memhet served in Kanizsa, he could capture the prisoners near it. The case mentioned in the letters could not last longer than a year, as the lists of grievances of the Batthyány family archives did not contain the names of Bükvicz and Ozvad.(56) The bayraktar was the lowest rank of officer in the Ottoman hierarchy in the first part of the 17th century.
Therefore, Memhet was quite poor, so he was forced to run an “enterprise,” which means plundering and subjugating villages. That’s why it is understandable that Memhet threatened the villagers aggressively, even comparing them with other letters. He also emphasized that he needed the money immediately because he could hardly wait for even 38 thalers. An average ransom was between 80–140 thalers, but it highly depended on the social status of the victim. For example, in 1644, in Temesköz, three Franciscan friars were released for 160 Thalers, but Matteo Benlich, missionary bishop, was released for 400 Thalers in 1654 in the same territory.57
However, the original ransom of the woman captured by Memhet is unknown; it could be around 80 Thalers or less, as the victim was “only” a peasant. Memhet was poor; therefore, he desperately needed the 38 Thalers, and he was bluffing when he said that he did not need 100 Thalers later. What’s more, the banner bearer was quite arrogant, considering his low rank, when he wrote that he did not care whether the villagers complained to Balogh Péter or anybody else. Balogh’s person is unknown (58), but knowing the standard procedure of these kinds of cases, he could have been a captain or vice-captain of a castle near the village whose task was to protect the serfs nearby.59 I could not find traces of this whole legal case, so it was solved somehow: the villagers paid the money to Memhet, or he sold the son of Ozvad Miklos to the janissaries.
How much could Bükvicz and Ozvad take the threat seriously? They had to understand the risks of their everyday existence, but several pieces of data refer to and highlight the Turkish plundering and danger for the spectators of nowadays as well.
The addressees lived on the Batthyány estate, so they had to know some of those examples that we can see now. Between 1630 and 1641, 351 people from Felső-Lindva and 598 people from Alsó-Lindva were captured or killed. At the same time, 399 persons were captured or killed from Dobra, Muraszombat, and Rakicsán.60 Furthermore, in the 1640’s the Turkish activity was intensive regarding the subjugation of villages on the Batthyány estates. (61) Nationwide, between 1627 and 1642, 4502 people were captured, and 128,665 Thalers were spent to get some of them back.62
Endgame: Janissaries in the business
The threat „…I am selling your son to the Janissaries …” can be interpreted in two ways: (1) the child will be sent to Istanbul to serve as a janissary, or (2) the local janissaries in the Hungarian territory under Turkish rule will buy him from Memhet to sell to others at a higher price.
The first option is unlikely for several reasons. Based on the laws of janissaries (1), the Hungarian Kingdom did not pay devsirme (= tax paid in children for the janissaries) because the Hungarian children were undisciplined and always escaped.63 (2) The rules forbade taking children of the leaders of villages or villagers because they were said to be low and underlings.64
(3) The devsirme was collected and supervised by the appointed officers and not anybody. (4) The long-distance slave trade started to decline in the second part of the 16th century, and the local ransom slavery started to flourish,65 but there were some exceptions.66
The second option is more probable. (1) The “wagon” mentioned in the letter refers to a wagon of slaves and regular transport. (2) Basically, the janissaries were foot soldiers, and theoretically they could not participate in raids, but they could be in the “slave business” and they had their own slave suppliers, like Memhet. (3) It is not unthinkable as there are analogous examples like the following: Török Fáti “pribék” (= person who collaborated with the Turks) woman, and her panders kidnapped young girls and accomplished sabotage actions against Hungarian targets.67
It is also for sure that there were 175 janissaries at Kanizsa in 1629–1630.68 Most of them were underpaid69 and their legendary discipline was declining.70 They had the motivation, methods, and tradition of slave trading. For example, in December 1589 and January 1590, the beglerbegh of Buda was admonished two times to have the janissary aga of Buda accounted for his deeds as he was in debt of 30,000 or 35,000 Gurus (around 20,000 golden Forints) for the treasury. Because the aga promised this amount of money after ransoms of slaves to give to the treasury for his commission. (71) If the ransom slavery was so profitable at the end of the 16th century, then it could have been even more gainful and well organised by the middle of the 17th century, which was the height of the local ransom slavery.
It is unclear what happened to the banner bearer and the villagers. Their story is commonplace except for one moment when a unique and special threat appeared, which connected this case to the less-known janissaries. The letters of Memhet, analogous examples, and sporadic references could draw a sketch of the everyday reality of life in the shade of Turkish menace in the first part of the 17th century in the Batthyány villages.
(Author: Dr. Illik Péter)
Footnotes:
1. The central part of Hungary, which was established after the Ottomans had captured the fortress of Buda in 1541.
2 The letters were written by Memhet himself, or Memhet had a scribe write them. However, essentially the two statements refer to the same fact that Memhet’s thoughts and orders appear in the sources. The excerpts of letters are translated by the author.
3 Famous Hungarian baronial family who owned territories in Western-Transdanubia from the 16th century.
4 The names are in their original forms.
5 Byraktar or alemdar. See HEGYI, 2007, p. 138.
6 It appears on the form of „Kanisánj” as well. It is Kanizsa.
7 MOL Batthyány család Levéltára, Missiles P 1314 No 30926.
8 MOL Batthyány család Levéltára, Missiles P 1314 No 30927.
9 VARGA J., 1991, p. 129.
10 Ottoman cavalrymen giving military service for estates.
11 Cited by J. ÚJVÁRY, 2008, p. 34.
12 MOL Batthyány család Levéltára, Missiles P 1314 No 00405.
13 MOL Transylvanica A 98 12. fasciculus, 264. recto–268. verso. The names of villages are in their original forms. Those ending in “cz” are “vindus” (Slovene) villages.
14 Unknown, in county Vas.
15 Postscript.
16 Unknown, in county Vas.
17 Szalamoncz, a village in the county of Vas.
18 It means stubborn in this case.
19 Cited by J. ÚJVÁRY, 2008, p. 33.
20 Pucnic, a village in the county of Vas.
21 Hungarian measure of liquid.
22 Tokorcs, a village in County Vas.
23 Hosszúfalú, village in county Vas.
24 Kutos, a village in the county of Vas.
25 Szentmárton, a village in the county of Vas.
26 Mártonfalva, a village in the county of Vas.
27 Kis-Börzsöny, a village in the county of Vas.
28 Kis és Nagy-Köcsk, villages in the county of Vas.
29 There were two villages named Kápolna in the county of Vas.
30 Miske, a village in the county of Vas.
31 Dömölk, a village in the county of Vas.
32 Sitke, a village in the county of Vas.
33 Hőgyész, village in county Vas.
34 There were several villages named Sárkány, but not in County Vas.
35 Unknown.
36 ILLIK, 2010, p. 132.
37 Ibid., p. 129.; p. 139.
38 Unknown, in county Vas.
39 Sulincz, a village in the county of Vas.
40 Goricza, a village in the county of Vas.
41 Cited by J. ÚJVÁRY, 2008, p. 32.
42 Unknown, in county Vas.
43 Vidoncz, a village in County Vas.
44 Pecsnáróc, a village in the county of Vas.
45 Sum of tax.
46 Komárom.
47 See, ILLIK, 2010, p. 132.; p. 135.
48 Morácz, a village in the county of Vas near Iváncz.
49 Agree on their tax.
50 Kovasócz, a village in the county of Vas.
51 Mocskóc, a village in the county of Vas.
52 Kustanócz, a village in the county of Vas.
53 Unknown, in county Vas.
54 Unknown, in county Vas.
55 E.g., in the case of Sulinc when it submitted. MOL Transylvanica A 98 8. doboz, 791. fol. verso.
56See, MOL Batthyány család Levéltára, Török vonatkozású iratok P 1313 248–249. cs.
57 TÓTH, 1996/2002. p. 171.
58 He does not appear in the database of Batthyány familiars and servants. (http://archivum.piar.hu/batthyany/familia-keret.htm)
59 Batthyány Ádám (1633–1649), captain-general of the Transdanubian castles and fortresses, and his captains emphasized defending the Hungarian peasants. (J. ÚJVÁRY, 2008, p. 30.)
60 ILLIK, 2010, pp. 61–63.
61 Ibid., p. 121.
62 Ibid., p. 165.
63 Uo. 10.
64 A janicsárok törvényei, 1989, p. 6.
65 PÁLFFY, 1997, p. 12.
66 Ibid., p. 13.
67 DR. FENYVESI, 1990, pp. 92–95.
68 Hegyi, 2007, p. 1543.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid., pp. 148–149.
71 FODOR, 2004. p. 12.
List of sources and bibliography
Sources used:
MOL Batthyány család Levéltára, Missiles P 1314 No 30926. MOL Batthyány család Levéltára, Missiles P 1314 No 30927. MOL Batthyány család Levéltára, Missiles P 1314 No 00405.
MOL Batthyány család Levéltára, Török vonatkozású iratok P 1313 248–249. cs.
MOL Transylvanica A 98 12. fasciculus, 264. recto–268. verso.
A janicsárok törvényei (1606), in: Török-magyar hadtörténelmi emlékek, translated, FODOR, Pál, Bp., 1989.
Bibliography:
- DR. FENYVESI, LÁSZLÓ, Török Fáti, a leányrabló pribékasszony vallomása, 1648. Honismeret 1990/1–2. pp. 92–95.
- FODOR, PÁL, A szimurg és a sárkány: az Oszmán Birodalom és Magyarország (1390– 1533), in: Közép-Európa harca a török ellen a 16. század első felében, edited: ZOMBORI, István, Bp., 2004. pp. 9–35.
- HEGYI, KLÁRA, A török hódoltság várai és várkatonasága I–III., Bp., 2007.
- ILLIK, PÉTER, Török dúlás a Dunántúlon, Szigetmonostor, 2010.
- J. ÚJVÁRY, ZSUZSANNA, „Csak az nevét viseljük az békességnek…” Oszmán hódoltatás és hódító levelek a Dunántúlon a XVII. században, in: Mindennapi élet a török árnyékában, Piliscsaba, 2008.
- PÁLFFY, GÉZA, A rabkereskedelem és rabtartás gyakorlata és szokásai a XVI–XVII. századi török-magyar határ mentén, (Az oszmán-magyar végvári szokásjog történetéhez.) Fons 1997/1. pp. 5–79.
- TÓTH, István György, Katolikus misszionáriusok mint török foglyok a 17. századi hódolt Magyarországon, Keletkutatás 1996. ősz–2002. tavasz, pp. 161–183.
- VARGA J., JÁNOS, Rabtartás és rabkereskedelem a 16-17. századi Batthyány- nagybirtokon, in: Unger Mátyás emlékkönyv, edited: E. KOVÁCS Péter, KALMÁR János, V. MOLNÁR László, Bp., 1991. pp. 121–133.