[Vanasalus]

I have been doing some random reading on later 16th early 17th century economies in the world. I will ask a few questions to have better understanding of the context.

Before that, let me present some figures from my notes which I have compiled:


Country, year, estimated population, annual state revenues:

England, 1598, ~4 million people, 1.2 million ducats
France, 1608, ~15 million people, 6.6 million ducats
Spanish Empire, 1600, ~9 million people, 13 million ducats
Venice and its dominions, 1600, ~1 million people, 2.5 million ducats
Ottoman Empire, 1598, ~15 million people, 12 million ducats

I am aware that the figures presented above do not necessarily mean that an average Venetian was ~8 times richer than an average Englishman in circa 1600. There are other factors to be considered. Degree of centralization is one. Taxing rates/efficiency is another that I can think of.

Can you elaborate on these three factors as well as the other factors that I miss?

And, let me ask another question, a more sensational one: Do not these figures imply that the reign of Elizabeth I was not a golden age for England at all?

[Potemkin]

The reign of Elizabeth I was a cultural Golden Age for England, but certainly not a material or military Golden Age. England at that time was a third or fourth rate European power, and its 'Empire' consisted of a few Caribbean islands and a couple of feeble colonies in North America.

[Thunderhawk]

Do your estimates and sources include, or consider, revenues recieved and spent by lower tier governments?
Is there a value places on labour paid to the state/lord/etc?

[pugsville]

Could have been 8 times LESS taxed, or 8 times less warlike. From what I recall, almost all income in the period was trade duties, the organization for income tax and stuff was way off, and virtually 90% of expenditure was on the military or debt caused by the military expediture. Britain was in a fortunately position in many respects not having to maintain a large army, thus excused a the major expense of most equalivent nations at the time. Britain could have been taxed less largely as a large army was not needed. From what I recall, they fianicial accounting of the period was almost not existant, no real Idea of what it was being spent.

Corruption inefficentcies of the system were pretty important. Are these figures taxes/duties paid, or recieved at the treasury so to speak. I think British with trade pretty centralised and much easier to control, levy effective duties. Could have been getting much more of tax/duties.

[Vanasalus]

Do your estimates and sources include, or consider, revenues recieved and spent by lower tier governments?
Is there a value places on labour paid to the state/lord/etc?

I was considering of these questions when I phrased my question of "degree of centralization"? I can answer your questions only for Venice and Ottoman Empire. Both states had an established and highly centralized bureaucratic structure in earl 17th century. Thus, even remote provinces, e.g. Crete for Venice or Egypt for Ottomans, were effectively under the control of the central state. This control indeed allows us to know more about financial status of the both empires. And, the revenues, I presented in the first post for these two states, includes all public revenues both at local and imperial level.

The situation of Spain is complicated. I need to read more to have a better understanding. Yet, unusually high public revenues of Spain must be mainly due to silver/gold shipments from New World. (That being said, Spain was also the most indebted kingdom of the time. A ridiculously high number: 80+ million ducats by 1600. Some sources refer the war in Low Countries was the reason. But, for my part, it alone does not explain 80+ million ducats debt)

France and England... I do not know much at this stage.

From what I recall, almost all income in the period was trade duties, the organization for income tax and stuff was way off, and virtually 90% of expenditure was on the military or debt caused by the military expediture.

Trade duties was an important article of the state revenues. Perhaps, a lot more for Venice… Yet, the main income source by a wide margin for any state in those times was the poll tax.

[Cookie Monster]

I am surprised that in your figures France is more populous than the Spanish Empire. Are the peoples of all the territories of the Spanish Habsburg Empire included?

I have doubts about your claim that the Ottoman Empire was highly centralised. I was under the impression that well into the 19th century the Ottomans heavily relied on local authorities to exercise, in some cases nominal, control.

[Potemkin]

I have doubts about your claim that the Ottoman Empire was highly centralised. I was under the impression that well into the 19th century the Ottomans heavily relied on local authorities to exercise, in some cases nominal, control.

Indeed. In the early 19th century, the French, and then the British, managed to wrest Egypt away from the Ottoman Empire, yet it was never included as part of the British Empire and the British always maintained the fiction that they were governing Egypt on behalf of the Ottoman Empire. I believe the British governor of Egypt even had the title 'Pasha'. Maps of the world at that time could therefore be very misleading.

[Vanasalus]

I am surprised that in your figures France is more populous than the Spanish Empire. Are the peoples of all the territories of the Spanish Habsburg Empire included?

Yes, other territories of Spain in Europe were included. But, the indigenous people of New Spain were not.

As for France. It was one of the most densely populated regions of the word since dark ages. Climate, landscape made it so. At that time, most of today's vast arable lands of Spain were not arable at all.

Ottoman empire of the time on the lands of Egypt, northern Africa, whole Middle East, Turkey, Balkans and more territories in Europe had barely equal population with the kingdom of France. Thus, Spain's 9 million population is not that surprising.

I have doubts about your claim that the Ottoman Empire was highly centralised. I was under the impression that well into the 19th century the Ottomans heavily relied on local authorities to exercise, in some cases nominal, control.

We are talking about early 1600s, are not we? If we look for an era when central authority of Ottoman Empire largely disappeared, it should be years between 1774 and 1826.

Indeed. In the early 19th century, the French, and then the British, managed to wrest Egypt away from the Ottoman Empire, yet it was never included as part of the British Empire and the British always maintained the fiction that they were governing Egypt on behalf of the Ottoman Empire. I believe the British governor of Egypt even had the title 'Pasha'. Maps of the world at that time could therefore be very misleading.

Egypt, since invaded by Ottomans in 1517 till Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt, has been a cash-cow for the empire. She was remitting 1/4 to1/3 of its revenues to Istanbul during 1500s and 1600s. That was 500k to 800k ducats cash from Egypt to the coffers of Sultan every year.

Egypt’s de-facto independence from Porte was not accomplished by Bonaparte, though. It was accomplished by Mehmed Ali Pasha, an Ottoman general with an army sent for Egypt to reinstate the Porte’s authority after Napaleon’s defeat in near East.. The guy swiftly reinstated the authority, not for Porte but for himself. The struggle between Mehmed Ali and Istanbul in the following years came to a conclusion that he and his descendants were recognized as governors (later as Khedives(viceroys)) of Egypt. Thus, Ottoman rule over Egypt was reduced to a nominal level until 1914.

[Potemkin]

Egypt’s de-facto independence from Porte was not accomplished by Bonaparte, though. It was accomplished by Mehmed Ali Pasha, an Ottoman general with an army sent for Egypt to reinstate the Porte’s authority after Napaleon’s defeat in near East.. The guy swiftly reinstated the authority, not for Porte but for himself. The struggle between Mehmed Ali and Istanbul in the following years came to a conclusion that he and his descendants were recognized as governors (later as Khedives(viceroys)) of Egypt. Thus, Ottoman rule over Egypt was reduced to a nominal level until 1914.

They trusted an Albanian with an army?

[Vanasalus]

They trusted an Albanian with an army?

Check the list of Grand Viziers of Ottoman Empire from 1320 to 1922.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ottoman_Grand_Viziers

You will find more than 30 Albanians among them.

[Potemkin]

Tricky guys, those Albanians.

[Vanasalus]

Tricky guys, those Albanians.

You know... Albanians.... deliver.... the job...

Ask Slavs.

[Cookie Monster]

Ask Slavs.

Or the Turks.
That Albanian in Egypt nearly defeated the Ottoman Empire. It required intervention by Western powers to stop his army in Syria.

Yes, other territories of Spain in Europe were included. But, the indigenous people of New Spain were not.

As for France. It was one of the most densely populated regions of the word since dark ages. Climate, landscape made it so. At that time, most of today's vast arable lands of Spain were not arable at all.

I am aware of the France's demographic power throughout European history. However, even when the natives of Spanish America's are not included, I would have thought the Spanish Habsburg Empire should equal France. It was not only the Iberian Peninsula, but also Austria, Bohemia, Spanish Netherlands, Southern Italy and other scattered lands throughout Europe.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... p_1547.jpg

We are talking about early 1600s, are not we? If we look for an era when central authority of Ottoman Empire largely disappeared, it should be years between 1774 and 1826.

I would argue that the Ottoman Empire never had been a proper centralised state. The Barbary Coast, Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania, and the numerous vassal states in the Balkans and the Arabian Peninsula are examples of its feudal imperialism.

[Vanasalus]

That Albanian in Egypt nearly defeated the Ottoman Empire.

Not him, but his son.

It required intervention by Western powers to stop his army in Syria.

Not in Syria, but in Kütahya. (Oops, I said too much. Now, I have to kill you. )

I am aware of the France's demographic power throughout European history. However, even when the natives of Spanish America's are not included, I would have thought the Spanish Habsburg Empire should equal France. It was not only the Iberian Peninsula, but also Austria, Bohemia, Spanish Netherlands, Southern Italy and other scattered lands throughout Europe.

But you miss an important detail. Upon the abdication of Charles V in 1556, his empire was divided between his son Philip and his brother Ferdinand. Philip inherited Spain, possessions in Italy, Low Countries, a part of Burgundy as well as oversea colonies. Ferdinand inherited Austria, Bohemia, parts of Hungary and Croatia, as well as the crown of the HRE.

I would argue that the Ottoman Empire never had been a proper centralised state. The Barbary Coast, Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania, and the numerous vassal states in the Balkans and the Arabian Peninsula are examples of its feudal imperialism.

Numerous other vassal states!!!? I guess you have counted them all.

Many factors can be examined in order to understand the success of centralized Ottoman administration. Yet, "Timariot" (and the standing army throughout the realm as a result) should be the dominant factor among all. (By 1600s, the empire was the only country in the word with a standing army.)