Mehmed Ağa Boyacıoğlu

Mehmed Ağa Boyacıoğlu († 1690 in Nicosia ) was one of the Ağas of Nicosia in Cyprus , who managed to rule the entire island from 1683/1685 to 1690. Often misinterpreted as an uprising against the central power in Constantinople , it was more the result of power struggles within the Ottoman elites on the island, in the course of which Boyacıoğlu succeeded in eliminating all Agas. Only a conflict with the French community on the island and the intervention of France's envoy at court led to the violent smashing of the system of rule, which was now reinterpreted as a rebellion against the sultan . Boyacıoğlu and his remaining followers were executed in Nicosia.

background

Cyprus, which had been conquered by the Ottomans in 1570/71 , remained mainly inhabited by Greeks, even if the new rulers brought about Turkish influx. But the leading groups were mainly Venetians who had ruled the island for around a century. A considerable number of them had left the island after the conquest. Orthodox Christians and local dignitaries tried to move up into the Ottoman hierarchy. This led to competitive battles in which on the one hand the relationship to the court in Constantinople and on the other hand religious affiliation could become an “argument” in the fight for one of the higher places in the hierarchy.

From 1670 to 1687 the island was under the authority of kapudan paşa , or his office, who in turn appointed a governor, the Mütesellim . Its most important task was to collect taxes and duties. Equipped with instructions and letters from the Sultan as well as a troop to break resistance if necessary, the Mütesellim should get as much as possible out of the island with as little effort as possible. To this end, the focus was less on violence or direct access than on negotiations with the local rulers and dignitaries. This gave the orthodox leadership group considerable influence on the overall process, because they had an elaborate structure that allowed them to access every subject, they spoke the national language and had administrative experience. The Ottoman government resorted to this influential administrative tool with great pragmatism. This relatively weak access by the state in turn created its own power structures at the local level. This position, in constant interaction, promoted the increasing control of the local giants on export products such as raw silk and cotton , which in turn attracted new dignitaries, clergy and military who expanded their land holdings. Their competition with one another intensified. Merchants therefore became politicians, politicians became merchants. The "Ottomanization" consisted in the fact that local elites were integrated into the ruling structure, but also in that officials and other civil servants were very strongly integrated into the local structures. The fact that Cyprus was often used as a place of exile reinforced this development in what is also a remote province, which from the capital's point of view had only low priority. The most important thing was that the island was no longer in the hands of the Venetians.

The said groups are almost not at all in the Ottoman sources, at least in outlines in the Venetian sources. They acted extremely informally and no formal structures emerged. Groups with common interests, such as landowners or traders, civil servants or officers, by no means always had to act together, even if common interests could connect them. Against this background, violent movements did not arise because there was a rebellion against Constantinople, but because the "rebels" demanded a share in the system of government. This also applies to the unrest at the time of Boyacıoğlu.

Overall, Cyprus was marked by such unrest. İbrahim Paşa, the island's mummy , was deposed after military unrest and executed in 1665. His successor, Derzi İbrahim Paşa, was also covered with lawsuits, but after an investigation he was acquitted of all allegations and the islanders had to pay 36,000 gurus . It was about delayed pay payments and the intervention of members of the army against tax collectors. The Janissaries, in turn, operated a collection system for their own account, which was sued in 1675. For his part, the leader of the Janissaries complained that the Beylerbey of Cyprus, Abdülkadir Paşa, had demanded money from them without any legal basis. In 1676 the local ağas thwarted the collection of the jizya , which also led to this complaint at the gate. In 1677 the same thing happened with the collection of the bedel-i nüzül . The Porte then prohibited this procedure. The dragomaniacs also tried to gain power and wealth in this system, such as Markos Koromilos, better known as Markoullis . He appears in the sources in the 1660s as a man who had good contacts with Western Europeans. Although he was arrested and brought to Constantinople , he was released again on the intervention of the dragoman and commander of the imperial fleet Panayiotis Nikousios . Now, after a stay in Crete , Markoullis was raised to the rank of Dragoman of Cyprus by the Grand Vizier . He exaggerated his system of exploitation to such an extent that Archbishop Nikiphoros (1640–1674) requested his recall. Georgis, a Greek trader from Lefkara , was to be his successor, but Markoullis resisted, so the Grand Vizier was visited at that time during fighting in Poland . He banished Markoullis to Famagusta , where he was murdered by Janissaries a little later.

The riot"

Mehmed Ağa Boyacıoğlu first appears in the sources in the early 1680s. At the time he was a local ağa. In a dispute with his counterparts, he gradually ousted them and practically became master of the whole island. A first attempt to reintegrate him into the power structures was made in 1685/86, but this had no consequences for him. However, when he exceeded his responsibilities in contacting French traders, it sparked concern in Constantinople. The Frenchman Sauveur Marin had loaned Boyacıoğlu money. Apparently, the merchant reported to the French consul Balthazar Sauvan , Boyacıoğlu's people extorted him because of debts that his wife and mother owed the French, namely 1060 gurus . The consul in turn forwarded the complaint about this and other extortions to the French ambassador Pierre Girardin at the Sublime Porte . In June 1688 he received an instruction to repay the 1060 Guruş to Marin. Marin described to the envoy Louis Martin how Boyacıoğlu had entered his house and threatened to kill him because of gifts he had requested.

But these were the only breaches of law that Boyacıoğlu could be accused of. The pressure on the French community, which had contacts to Constantinople, apparently first ensured that he was fought as a "rebel". This was all the more due to the fact that he had apparently behaved inappropriately towards a French host, and especially his wife. In 1688/89 Boyacıoğlu was already considered a şaki , a bandit, and only now were more massive countermeasures initiated by the headquarters.

The most extensive source of the events is the history of Cyprus (Ιστορία Χρονολογική, 1788) by Archimandrite Kyprianos (around 1735–1803), which was not created until around a century later. Kyprianos obtained his information from the French consul Benoît Astier , who in turn claimed to have received it in 1764 from two very old Cypriots, one of whom was a Muslim and 97 years old, and pretended to have been a contemporary witness. The other, a Christian, was similarly old. According to their information, Boyacıoğlu's rise began when the Kapudan Paşa system was implemented in 1670 , which he did not see as a phase of weakness, but as a mutual system. The real problem arose not from the fact that the Agas monopolized tax collection with the consent of the island administration, even Constantinople, and even became the real masters of the island, but that they got into constant disputes. In the course of the escalating conflict, they began to arm themselves. After Boyacıoğlu was imprisoned in Famagusta in 1683, he was able to build up a rule over the entire island after his release. But during these five to seven years, according to Kyprianos, he continued to pay the entire cizye to the cizyedar appointed by the gate . In contrast, according to the author, his predecessors would have collected this tax, but kept it for themselves.

According to another source, Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Boyacıoğlu's supporters came from across the spectrum of the Ottoman military. This in turn drove out the other tax collectors.

The gate felt compelled to react. Çolak Mehmed Paşa was provided with troops to restore order. But he could not prevail, except in the Kubatoğlu çiftlik. Another sent out 'Frenk' Mehmed Bey was more successful, but he was killed in 1685/86. 1690 Çifutoğlu Ahmed Paşa was sent to subjugate Boyacıoğlu. He landed with his troops in the north, in Akanthou on the Karpas , from where he marched to Kythrea . There he cut off the flour deliveries to Nicosia, where the rebels had holed up. When he showed up two months later, the city had long been without food. Ahmed Paşa, who was joined by the unsuccessful Çolak Mehmed Paşa, promised Boyacıoğlu that he would be safe. The following night he withdrew with his men and went to Lefkara, then to Lefka , where 28 of his men were killed; 32 others were captured by Ahmed Paşa's men. In Kykkos , Boyacıoğlu managed to repel the pursuers. From there he moved to Paphos , then to Kyrenia in the north. There he got hold of a spy from his opponent who he had hung on a tree opposite the castle. Forced by the persecutors, he tried to hide in Famagusta , but the gates remained locked. He and six of his men fled to Pyla and Larnaka , trying to get to Limassol . But they were imprisoned in Koilani . Çifutoğlu Ahmed Paşa had their leader brought to Nicosia, where he hanged him that night. While his body was on display the next day, his remaining pendants were hung on hooks through the jaw.

But that by no means ended the unrest. Ahmed Paşa, now Beylerbey of Cyprus, was charged with killing people who had nothing to do with Boyacıoğlu in order to confiscate their property. He had arbitrarily increased the cizye and collected fines even though he had been prohibited from doing so. A Kapıcıbaşı was used as early as January 1691 to investigate the incidents. Ahmed Paşa was executed.

reception

In the tradition, the uprising was called a "rebellion" and its leader was considered a "bandit". Since the sources about Mehmed Ağa Boyacıoğlu come from the sphere of Ottoman rule, which retrospectively classified the events, historiography often adopted their perspective and classified them in the phases of state “weakness” of the great empire. Also the ideas of contemporaries that in earlier times there was a more direct exercise of power and generally better social conditions were often received uncritically when depicting the rebellions. At the same time, the image of constant "rebellions" fitted into the image of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, or even of its decadence. It also blurs the line between insurrections and military revolts, which in fact increased sharply in the 17th century. This blocks the view of local and regional socio-economic relationships. The Ottoman unified term şaki / eşkiya for anyone who moved outside the authority of the Sultan contributed a lot to this approach. At least there was the possibility of returning from this illegitimate situation to a loyal relationship. So all these unrest were called isyan, şakavet or fitne.

literature

• Marios Hadjianastasis: Crossing the line in the sand: regional officials, monopolization of state power and 'rebellion'. The case of Mehmed Ağa Boyacıoğlu in Cyprus, 1685-1690 , in: Turkish Historical Review 2.2 (2011) 155-176.