{"word_count": 5109, "character_count": 31829}
Among the provisions made by the Ottoman sultans for the administration and defense of Egypt following the conquest of the former Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt and Syria in 1516-17 was the creation of three small naval squadrons in the ports of Alexandria, Damiette, and Suez. Each was commanded by an Ottoman captain holding the rank of sancakbeyi who not only commanded the squadron, but also administered the port that was the home base for his small naval force. The expenses for the squadrons were supported by tax farms that were assigned to the sancakbeyis who held the posts of captains.1 In addition, some expenses for the squadrons were included in the annual budget for this important province.2None of the three ports provided a secure harbor or adequate ship-building facilities for the creation and maintenance of large fleets, so the squadrons remained small and were used mainly for coastal defense and the protection of the sizable maritime trade between Egypt and ports of the Levant coast and the Ottoman Empire’s central lands. Although the Egyptian squadrons were not under the direct command of the Grand Admiral in Istanbul, when needed, vessels of these squadrons could be called for service with the imperial fleet during summer campaigns, just as commercial vessels might be armed and pressed into service by the government.3 Egypt became a breadbasket for the empire as well as the province through which the important trade of Asia passed into the Ottoman world. Soon the sea route between Egypt and the central Ottoman ports became the most important maritime corridor in the empire, transporting the valuable agricultural products of Egypt, such as rice, sugar, spices, including coffee, from the east, materials for the military, and abundant taxes. Once the strategically located island of Rhodes had been wrested from the Knights of St. John in 1522, the squadrons harbored at Rhodes and Alexandria were, for the most part, sufficient to screen the Arab provinces of the Eastern Mediterranean from Christian attacks and to protect the sea route between Egypt and the central lands of the empire.4Among the most important activities in the Egyptian ports was shipbuilding, for the empire required a very large number of both warships and commercial vessels. Although lack of forests in Egypt required the import of wood to build the ships of the squadrons, the skills to build these ships and the manpower to power them were available locally.5 But each of Egypt’s ports had noticeable deficiencies besides a lack of timber. Alexandria’s harbor, the most important on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast, could not provide a safe anchorage from the fierce gales and high waves that in winter season lashed the city’s shore. Rašīd (Rosette), which for administrative purposes was attached to the larger port of Alexandria, and Dumyāṭ (Damiette) could not accommodate large ships because of the bars that existed at the point where the two branches of the Nile on which these inland ports are situated entered the Mediterranean Sea. Suez, without water or wood, essentially shut down during the season when the winds blew from the north, but it played an important role in the annual pilgrimage and in Egypt’s commerce with the trading ports of the Red Sea and Asia.6 It was also to play an important role in the empire’s expansion towards the south in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as the Ottomans established themselves in Yemen and Abyssinia and attempted to defend the region against the predations of the Portuguese.7 The dramatic expansion of the trade in coffee, which Egypt imported in vast quantities from the Red Sea region for both local consumption and transshipment to numerous Ottoman ports, also gave impetus to Ottoman naval activity in the Red Sea in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.8The sixteenth century was a period of intense struggle for naval supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea as Ottoman, Hapsburg, and Venetian fleets attacked and counter-attacked across Mediterranean waters.9 While the struggle was intense in the middle and western Mediterranean region, the Ottomans were able to provide relative protection from the fleets of hostile naval powers for their eastern Mediterranean provinces, but they could not always defend against the predations of opportunistic pirate ships from lesser Christian powers. Egypt was therefore not drawn so deeply into the struggle for Mediterranean supremacy and its small squadrons were used mainly for defense of its coastal areas and for the protection of merchant shipping in eastern Mediterranean waters.10 The great Ottoman fleets that challenged the Spanish and Venetian fleets were built, and manned, in the chief Ottoman arsenals near the imperial capital of Istanbul.11 To date, we know little about shipbuilding in Egypt before the revival of the Egyptian shipbuilding industry by Muḥammad ʿAlī Pasha in the early nineteenth century.The ships of the sixteenth century were oared vessels that might have one or more small lateen sails, but above all relied upon manpower for speed and limited maneuverability. Although fleets of the sixteenth century included a number of different sized ships serving various purposes, such as carrying supplies of food and water, ammunition, or even horses, it was the oared galley that was the standard warship of all Mediterranean navies at the time. This narrow vessel was usually five to eight times as long as it was broad, having twenty-four to twenty-six banks of oars on either side, with usually three oarsmen (kürekciye) to each bank. Until the middle of the sixteenth century each oarsman had pulled a single oar, but by the second half of that century the oarsmen on a single bench pulled a single oar.12It has been suggested that Venetian galleys were faster under oars than Ottoman ones, but that Muslim galleys (including the North African corsairs) were faster than the heavier ships of Spain.13 A major change in naval warfare occurred in the fifteenth century when artillery was added. As Venetian guns were smaller and lighter than those carried by the ships of Spain, Venetian galleys remained lighter and easier to row.14 The Ottomans used their galleys mainly to transport troops and guns to be employed in siege warfare. Nevertheless, the differences among the Spanish, Venetian and Ottoman galleys used in sixteenth century Mediterranean naval warfare remained slight.15 At the time, galleys fired only from the prow, but after the destruction of much of their fleet at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, the Ottomans began to build a larger ship, the galleass, which was a converted merchant ship riding higher in the water and capable of carrying more guns and men. These heavier ships carried as many as 24 cannons and could fire broadsides.16 Despite the addition of artillery to the ships, the Ottoman galley remained basically unchanged from the fifteenth century until it was replaced by the sailing vessel in the last third of the seventeenth century.In combat, the galley transported soldiers as well as the sailors required to maneuver the vessel and direct the oarsmen. In addition, therefore, to the approximately 150-200 oarsmen propelling the galley and a crew of 25-30 sailors, a contingent of around 60 fighting men was on board the ship.17 After the Battle of Lepanto, however, the number of fighting men was increased to 150 on imperial ships. The galleass, which appeared after 1571 could carry a crew of as many as 600 men, but appeared among the squadrons in only small numbers.18In 1660, in the aftermath of stunning naval reversals, and on the eve of the transition to the age of sail, the Ottomans had only 56 galleys available for service at sea. Fortunately, we have a full accounting of the manner in which the oarsmen were mustered for service for the summer campaign of that year, for the empire had long-established systems for assembling all the men necessary to build and man its warships that put to sea.19For several good reasons the Ottomans preferred freemen to slaves to propel their galleys.20 The freeman was usually more committed to the battle, less likely to slack-off or escape when the opportunity arose, was cheaper than a slave to maintain since he was released from duty when the campaign was over, and was often expected to join the battle on land by serving duty as a soldier. It is reported for the sixteenth century that Azabs, members of one of the two most important military corps of the Ottoman Empire, were frequently taken on as oarsmen because they could leave their oars and join the battle when troops were landed to attack an enemy’s fortified position, but we find a large number of Janissaries, not Azabs, mentioned in the 1660 statistics.21 In time of necessity, when the muster didn’t produce the required number of oarsmen, volunteers were recruited for service; convicts and/or foreign slaves might also be conscripted.A total of 12,391 oarsmen, or an average of 221 oarsmen per galley, were assembled for the 1660 naval campaign. Of these, only 835 (6.73%) were convicts, while 93.27% were freemen.22 Among the latter would be Christians of the empire who volunteered for service and received the usual salary.23 Of the total oarsmen for 1660, 35.8% (4441 oarsmen), mainly Greek Christians of the empire, were volunteers. A range of taxes, most in the form of a levy on designated households or communities, supported the recruitment and pay for these men.The main cost for the oarsmen for the 1660 campaign was borne by the Anatolian provinces of the empire. Those provinces nearest the sea were obliged to furnish a required number of oarsmen. Usually, one oarsman was levied from one household while a designated number of other households was required to pay for his salary and expenses.24 For this campaign the inner Anatolian provinces, those furthest from the shore, were assessed 28 million akçes. Other provinces and districts were required to contribute 5,068 oarsmen.25The ahl al‑ḏimma, the non-Muslim inhabitants of the empire, and the guilds of Istanbul were assessed the bedel, a tax paid in lieu of service. For the campaign of 1660 the Jews were charged a sum to support 150 oarsmen. The Greeks were assessed for 125 oarsmen, and the Armenians for 100 oarsmen; the guilds of Istanbul had to pay for the support of 869 oarsmen. Altogether, Istanbul supported 1244 oarsmen, or 10% of the total for the campaign of 1660.26Of the oarsmen recruited for this campaign, 71.4% came from the coastal provinces of western Anatolia, the usual region from which oarsmen were mustered at that time.27 In addition to the oarsmen, each galley included 4-5 gunners to fire the 3-5 guns a galley carried. A total of 1,975 Janissaries was also assigned, roughly 35 Janissaries per galley, for this campaign, and 500 armored soldiers, or 8-10 per galley. An Ottoman galley thus carried about 300 men in the mid-seventeenth century (220 oarsmen, 30 sailors and 50 soldiers).28It is in this context that we review five documents from the šarīʿa court of Rašīd from the year 1598 and another from the year 1632.29 While showing many similarities to the muster of oarsmen for imperial ships in the empire’s central regions, the methods for the muster of oarsmen for imperial ships in Egypt also differed in some significant ways. For instance, the levy of rowers on villages, so vital in the Aegean region, was unknown in Egypt. The first document of the group of five certifies that eight muqaddimūn (sing. muqaddim)30received from the sheikh of the guild (ṭāʾifa) of muqaddimūn, Sheikh Muḥammad, the son of the deceased al‑Nūrī ʿAlī, the sum of 1269 sulṭānī gold dinars31 to recruit 141 able oarsmen to serve on a small galley (aġriba)32 of the empire that would depart from the port of Alexandria for the summer season.33 The table below provides the names of the eight muqaddimūn and summarizes the number of oarsmen each was to bring forward within one month and the amount of payment each received.34 Each recruit was to receive nine dinars for his summer service, but the documents recording the names of the oarsmen indicate that many received an advance on this sum, for oarsmen were often recruited one or two months prior to their actual departure. The total of 141 oarsmen to be recruited would appear to be close to a full complement of oarsmen on an Egyptian galley.Table 1.Name of MuqaddimNumber of OarsmenAmount of Dinars ReceivedǦawdat ibn Šarīf al‑Dīn ibn Mūsā46414Mūsā ibn Manṣūr al‑Dandarāwī16144Ḥusayn, known as Falayfil, ibn Ḥusayn20180Nūr al‑Dīn ibn Manṣūr and ʿAbd al‑Ǧawwād ibn ʿUmar16144Aḥmad Šihāb al‑Dīn, known as al‑Idfāwī13117Salīm ibn ʿUbayd from ʿIzbat al‑Rūs13117Aḥmad ibn ʿĀmir, known as al‑Tābiʿ17153Totals1411269The first thing one notices in this group of eight muqaddimūn is that at least two seem to come from Upper Egypt (al‑Dandarāwī and al‑Idfāwī). As we shall see below, 15% of the total of oarsmen recruited by the muqaddimūn whose place of origin can be determined are also of Upper Egyptian (Ṣaʿīdī) origin.The judge (qāḍī) of the port and the muqaddimūn played key roles in finding the required number of oarsmen and delivering them for service on the ship(s). Once the captain of the port issued his request for men to serve as oarsmen for his ship(s), he delivered to the judge the sum of money, whether from his own tax farm or from the government’s budget, sufficient for the salaries and support of the oarsmen for their summer service. The judge in turn gave this sum to the sheikh of the ṭāʾifa (guild) of muqaddimūn. The muqaddimūn were apportioned a specific sum of money by the guild sheikh dependent on the number of oarsmen they were assigned to recruit for service. The muqaddimūn located the oarsmen, agreed to pay them in advance, and delivered to the judge a list of the names of each oarsman and the amount of money the oarsman had been prepaid for his service. The judge kept a faithful account of all these transactions, giving a copy to the captain of the port and inserting into the register of his court a copy of all these dealings.As Table Two shows, the muqaddim Ḥusayn, known as Falayfil, ibn Ḥusayn produced sixteen oarsmen whose pay was listed.35 He apparently had four more oarsmen (see Table One) to recruit since he had been given money for 20 oarsmen.Table 2.Name of OarsmanPay in dinarsAdvance in dinars (d) &#38; niṣf fiḍḍa (n)ʿAbdallāh ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Aḥmad al‑Imbābī95 d; 15 nʿAlī ibn Ḥiǧāzī ibn Ḫalīl al‑Miṣrī, from Ḥārat Fawwāla92 dMuḥammad ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Aḥmad, known as al‑Ḥalabī92 d, 23 nʿAlī ibn ʿAbdallāh al‑Hindī91 dManṣūr ibn Ḥusam al‑Dīn al‑Abū Tīǧī91 dMuḥammad ibn Dirqub (?) ibn Maǧīd al‑Bilbaysī92 d; 12 nSalīm ibn Ṣabbūr al‑Ǧirǧāwī, known as Ibn al‑Saʿīd9ʿAbdallāh ibn Yūnis al‑Ḫaršī, known as Ibn Ḫalīfa91 dSalāma ibn Aḥmad ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Muḥammad9Sulṭān ibn Salāma ibn Aḥmad ibn (?) from Ḥārat al‑Fawwālīn96 dQā’id ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Ḥasan ibn Ḥiǧāzī al‑Qamrinī95 dʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al‑Quraynī, known as al‑Ṭawīl9Muḥammad ibn Mubārak al‑Šabbāsī, known as Ibn al‑Ǧaʿīd97 dal‑Ḥāǧǧ ʿAbd al‑ʿĀṭī ibn Ḥasan al‑Basṭī from Ḥārat al‑Muqass95 d; 10 nHis retainer (tābiʿ) Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al‑Bāqī ibn (?)9Ḫamīs ibn Ǧumʿa ibn Sirāǧ al‑Dīn, known as Ibn ʿUmar9Totals144The muqaddim Aḥmad ibn Šihāb al‑Dīn al‑Faraskūrī, known as al‑Idfāwī, produced only five of the 13 oarsmen whom he had been given money to recruit (see Table One). He noted the commitment of 45 dinars and cited the advances to his five recruits as follows.36Table 3.Name of OarsmanPay in dinarsAdvance in dinars (d) &#38; niṣf fiḍḍa (n) Muḥammad ibn Zunful al‑ʿAǧīrī9100 nSalīm ibn Sulaymān93 d; 5 nSalīm ibn Ḥamdān ibn ʿAbdallāh from al‑Manufiyya94 ½ dḤāmid ibn Aḥmad ibn Ibrahīm al‑Rašīdī, known as Ibn Murtaḍā9Ḫiḍr ibn Sulaymān ibn Ziyāda96 dTotals45Another lengthy list of 59 oarsmen is recorded along with the other documents, but the muqaddim who produced them is not one of the eight muqaddimūn listed in Table One. He is, rather, the muqaddim Sayyid al‑Nāṣirī Muḥammad, the son of the deceased al‑Nūrī Muḥammad, the sheikh of the ṭāʾifa of muqaddimūn al‑baḥḥāra in Lower Egypt, and is cited as one of the caulkers (ḫalfiǧiyya) in the arsenal of Alexandria. He committed for the 59 recruits the sum of 520 ½ dinars for their service on this imperial mission. Their names and payments are listed in Table 4.37Table 4.Name of OarsmanPay in dinarsAdvance in dinars (d) &#38; niṣf fiḍḍa (n)Ibrahīm ibn Ibrahīm, known as Kinnīš and Ibn Rifīʿa92 dʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al‑Basīṭī, from Ḫaṭṭ Ḫurunfiš in Cairo9Fāris Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdallāh al‑Miṣrī, from Bāb al‑Šaʿriyya91.5 dBadīr ibn Diyāb ibn ʿAbdallāh al‑Imbābī93 dSalīm ibn Ḫalaf ibn ʿĀmira al‑Laqqānī and his92 dretainer Aḥmad ibn Abī ʿAṭiyya ibn Muḥammad from Safīḥa9ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al‑Ṭībī9ʿAbd al‑Karīm ibn Salīm ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Yaḥyā al‑Bahdānī, known as Abū Ṭabīḫ92.5 dMuḥammad Kirisla ibn ʿAbdallāh al‑Abīǧī92 dManṣūr ibn Ḥāǧǧ Ramaḍān ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Aḥmad al‑Nahrāwī96 dMarʿī ibn Ismaʿīl ibn Yūnis from al‑Ġumayra94 dAḥmad ibn ʿAbdallāh from Qūṣ92 dMuḥammad Falayfīl ibn Šukr ibn ʿAlī al‑Burullusī9Muʿarrif ibn Šayḫ Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al‑Raḥmān from al‑Ra’īsiyya in the Ṣaʿīd92.5 dSalīm ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al‑Samanūdī92 dŠiḥāta ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Ramaḍān al‑Nahrāwī, the brother of Manṣūr al‑Siyānī (see six lines above)91.5 dŠihāb al‑Dīn ibn Ḫayr al‑Dīn ibn Ḫalīl ibn ʿAbdallāh from Rawḍa in Cairo92 dAl-Ḥāǧǧ Aḥmad ibn Sulaymān ibn ʿAbdallāh al‑Manzalī and his91 dretainer Qāsim ibn Šiḥāta ibn Manṣūr al‑Ḥamawī91 dʿAbd al‑Nabī ibn ʿĪsā ibn ʿAbdallāh al‑Maḥallāwī, known as Qarāquṣ93 dYūnis ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥasan al‑Fuwwī al‑Ḥabbāb92 dAmīr Ḥāǧǧ ibn Marʿī ibn ʿAbdallāh and92.5 dhis brother Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad al‑Ṭabbāḫ91 dMuḥammad ibn Abī ʿĀmir ibn ʿAbdallāh al‑Šabšīrī al‑Ṭaḥḥān94 dAl-Ḥāǧǧ Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al‑Šayḫ Ibrahīm al‑Daḫmīsī91 dIbrahīm al‑Ḫūlī Ġālī al‑Ḥinnāwī ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ from Šaṭṭūra in the Ṣaʿīd and his colleague (rafīq)91.5 dʿAbdallāh ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Manṣūr ibn ʿAbdallāh, known as Ibn Ǧābirī al‑Ṣafṭī91.5 dAbū al‑Ḫayr ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ ʿAlī ibn Abū al‑Ḫayr al‑Damsīsī91 dhis father, al‑Ḥāǧǧ ibn ʿAlī al‑Damsīsī93.5 dŠams al‑Dīn ibn ʿAbd al‑Ǧalīl ibn ʿAlam al‑Dīn al‑Naǧǧārī95 dMuḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn ʿAbdallāh al‑Mazārī98 dYūsuf al‑Muhtadī ibn ʿAbdallāh ibn Aslan91 dYūnis ibn Qāsim ibn ʿĀfiya, known as Ibn Wišš92 dʿAlī ibn ʿAssul ibn ʿAbdallāh ibn Kāfūr al‑Mašʿaliyya9Ḫalīfa Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al‑Ḫulakī al‑Ṣaʿīdī93 dAl-Ḥāǧǧ Šiḥāta ibn Sirāǧ from al‑Muʿassara, known as al‑Ǧammāl and93 dhis retainer Šiḥāta ibn Šihāb al‑Dīn from al‑Maḥalla al‑Kubrā, andl-Šihāb al‑Dīn Ibn ʿAbd al‑Razzāq ibn Ramaḍān al‑Ḫawankī and9Muḥammad ibn Nāṣir al‑Dīn from Minyat al‑Muršid, known as al‑Fuwwī9Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad, known as Baǧʿ, from Maḥallat al‑Marḥūm96.5 dMuṣṭafā ibn ʿAbd al‑Qādir ibn ʿAbd al‑ʿAzīz al‑Bannā92 dSulaymān ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḫālid al‑Qallīnī93 dŠihāb al‑Dīn ibn Aḥmad ibn Māḍī al‑Imbābī, known as al‑Ǧazzār91 dSalīm ibn Salīm from Warrāq al‑Ḥaḍar in Ǧīza province95.5 dAḥmad ibn ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAlī from Šabās al‑Šuhadā’97 d; 30 nʿAlī ibn Sulaymān from Abī Durra in al‑Buḥayra, known as al‑Šāʿir9Muṣṭafā ibn Dā’ūd ibn Šayḫ ʿAbd al‑Raḥīm from al‑Maḥalla al‑Kubrā9Šihāb al‑Dīn ibn Aḥmad ibn Naṣr al‑Dīn from al‑Manzala95.5 dŠiḥāta ibn Ḫaṭṭāb, known as al‑ʿAwr (one eyed), who is the retainer of94 dʿAds Barġūṭa9Al-Ḥāǧǧ Aḥmad Abū Ǧaziyya ibn Aḥmad ibn Šiḥāta al‑Ǧuhaynī96.5 dʿĪsā ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Muḥammad from Dayrūṭ9Muḥammad ibn Sirāǧ al‑Dīn from Šubrā Ḫalqūn in Sukkiyya91 dʿĀmir ibn Ḥasan ibn ʿAyn al‑Ġazal al‑Damanhūrī al‑Qawwās96 dŠiḥāta ibn ʿAlī ibn Šiḥāta from Minyat al‑Hārūn6Sulaymān ibn Muḥammad al‑Alwāḥī, known as Hudayfa and as Falayfīl95 dMuḥammad ibn ʿAbd al‑Karīm, known as Ibn Ḥamīda al‑Alwayḥī93.5 dSulaymān ibn ʿAlī ibn Yūsuf al‑Burullusī5.5Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al‑Ǧīzī, known as al‑Aqraʿ5.25Totals520.75136.5 d; 30 nIn the fifth document the muqaddim Aḥmad ibn ʿĀmir, known as al‑Tābiʿ, vouches that he had received 180 dinars to recruit 20 oarsmen, yet in the document summarized in Table One he acknowledged receiving only 153 dinars to recruit 17 oarsmen.38 The 20 oarsmen, who acknowledged receiving their pay in advance, are listed in Table 5.Table 5.Name of OarsmanPay in dinarsAdvance in dinars (d) &#38; niṣf fiḍḍa (n)Ǧumʿa ibn Salāma al‑Šāmī96 d; 28 nḤasan ibn ʿAlī al‑Kurdī al‑Ḫirbaytī92.25 dMuḥammad ibn Ḥasan al‑Manzalī, known as al‑Humayn Mattī95 dMuḥammad ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Muḥammad al‑Dumyāṭī93.5 dʿĀmir ibn al‑Šayḫ Marʿī ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Muḥammad al‑Bahǧūrī al‑Ṣaʿīdī91.5 dand Muḥammad ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Muḥammad al‑Manṣūrī9Yūsuf ibn Sulaymān al‑Damanhūrī98 dʿAlī ibn ʿAwf ibn Muḥammad al‑Danī from Minyat Abī ʿAbdallāh91 dʿĀmir ibn Aḥmad ibn Ibrahīm al‑Šawrī9Murād ibn Ǧuwaylī al‑Manzalī, from al‑Šubūl99 dTimraz ibn Aḥmad ibn Šihāb al‑Dīn al‑Miṣrī, from al‑Ḥusayniyya92 d; 30 nḤiǧāzī ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ ʿAlī Ḥadid al‑Dumyāṭī913 dḤusayn ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al‑Dā’im al‑Skandarī916 nSalāma ibn ʿAbd al‑Nabī al‑Baṣratī, from al‑Manzala91 d; 30 nMuḥammad ibn ʿAlī Sayf al‑Dīn al‑ʿAqqāwī9Nūr ibn Ḥusām al‑Dīn, from Dayr Suwada in the Ṣaʿīd9ʿAbd al‑Razzāq ibn ʿAlī ʿAliwa from al‑Maṭariyya in Manzala9Šumayyas ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ʿAǧayna al‑Baramūnī97 dḤusayn ibn Dā’ūd al‑Muhtadī al‑Miṣrī from Bayn al‑Sūrayn95 dMuḥammad ibn Abī Bakr al‑Šāmī al‑Ḥalabī9Totals18080.25 d; 88 nThe total number of oarsmen the muqaddimūn recruited was thus 129. Would they be given more time to produce the remaining kürekciye? Would these required oarsmen be taken from the jails of Egypt’s Mediterranean ports, or would they be conscripted? It is unclear how the remaining 12 oarsmen were to be assembled.39The budget for Egypt in 1596-97 cited a salary of 500,000 osmanis and 294,400 paras for Hizir Bey, mir liva, the captain of the port of Suez, 506,500 osmanis and 220,199 paras for Hasan Bey, mir liva, the captain of the port of Damiette, and 500,000 osmanis and 294,704 paras for Mehmet Bey, mir liva, the captain of the port of Alexandria.40 These sums, however, were salaries for their membership in the dīwān, or governing council, of Cairo and were in addition to the revenues from the tax farms each held. In addition, Hasan Bey was assigned 5,125 osmanis from the budget to pay for oarsmen in his personal galley. The sum of 170,550 osmanis was assigned in the same budget to pay the wages of oarsmen serving with the fleet in Alexandria and Rašīd for the year 1005/1596-7.41 Given this relatively small sum, it would appear that the Ottoman Empire operated only a small number of warships from Egypt. It is obvious, however, that Alexandria was the primary harbor for the empire’s fighting ships in Egypt. To meet expenses relating to the visit of ships of the imperial ships to Egypt, the authorities were also permitted to collect a special tax, the mali‑i kürekciye (oarsmen tax) from many of the villages near the sea since they were the chief beneficiaries of the protection afforded by the Mediterranean squadrons. This tax amounted to 40 paras for every 25,000 paras of land tax.42The Rašīd court also records in the year 1632 the recruitment of oarsmen for service in the galliot of Mustafa Bey, the amīr al‑liwā al‑šarīf al‑sulṭānī for Alexandria and Rašīd, for that year’s season.43 He received the money to pay for the oarsmen in the dīwān of Alexandria from the amīr Amr Allāh Agha ʿAlaylī in the presence of Sheikh Ḫalīfa, the son of the deceased muqaddim ʿAbd al‑ʿAzīz, a member of the ṭāʾifa (of muqaddimīn) of Suez. Sheikh Ḫalīfa was assigned responsibility for distributing the wages to the oarsmen who would be brought forward by the muqaddim Mannā’ Abū ʿAlī al‑Rifāʿī and his colleague (rafīq), the muqaddim Dirāz ibn Muḥammad al‑Zaydī. For this service, each oarsman was to receive 10 qurūš (each qirš = 30 niṣf fiḍḍa), or 300 niṣf fiḍḍa, which would seem to indicate a rather short mission for Mustafa Bey, especially since it comes a little late in the season. The twenty-six oarsmen, their wages and advances, are cited in Table 6.Table 6.Name of Oarsman Recruited in 1632Pay in qurūšAdvance in qurūšʿAlī ibn Aḥmad al‑Sandalǧī and his10son ʿAbdallāh10Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al‑Biršamī101Aḥmad ibn al‑Ḥāǧǧ Sulaymān al‑Ǧallād102ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al‑Fuwwī101.5Sulaymān ibn Aḥmad al‑Hāšimī10ʿAbd al‑Raḥīm ibn Muḥammad al‑Miṣrī10Sulaymān ibn Muḥammad Abī al‑ʿUqba Ismaʿīl al‑Sandalūnī10ʿAbd al‑Karīm ibn Muḥammad al‑Badawī al‑Ġazzālī102Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al‑Rašīdī101Ḥiǧāzī ibn Budayr al‑Rašīdī10Šiḥāta ibn Manṣūr al‑Mallāḥ10Manṣūr ibn Muḥammad al‑ʿIfiš10Aḥmad ibn Sālim al‑Qahwaǧī al‑Muʿaddawī10Muḥammad ibn Šihāb al‑Dīn al‑Miṣrī102Šihāb al‑Dīn ibn Aḥmad al‑ʿAbadī10Ḫamīs ibn ʿAlī al‑Ṣaʿīdī10ʿAṭā Allāh ibn Muḥammad al‑Ṣaʿīdī10ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad al‑Qaffāṣ10Manṣūr ibn Manṣūr al‑Mirhāwī102ʿIzz al‑ʿArab ibn Zaydān al‑Dalamī10ʿĀmir ibn Aḥmad from Azbakiyya10Ǧamīl ibn ʿAṭā Allāh al‑Ṣaʿīdī10ʿAlī ibn ʿAšūr al‑Qilfaṭ (caulker)10ʿAlī ibn Ibrahīm, known as Ibn al‑Miṣriyya al‑Rašīdī101Aḥmad ibn Badr, from Ṭanṭā10Totals26012.5Although the documents in the court registers are seldom written clearly, it has been possible, with some confidence, to identify the town, or region, of origin for 80 of the 129 oarsmen who volunteered for the 1598 sailing.44 Not surprisingly, 50 oarsmen, or 62.5% of the 80, are from towns and villages of the Delta region, an area stretching from the seaside regions (Rašīd, Manzala, for example) to the area around al‑Manṣūra north of Cairo. But 30 oarsmen, or 37.5% of the total identified by place of origin, are not from this Delta region. Five oarsmen (6.25%) appear to be from Syria.45 It is not surprising to find them in Rašīd or other of Egypt’s coastal towns at this time, for Egypt’s Mediterranean ports were connected to virtually all the ports in the eastern Mediterranean area under Ottoman control. In addition to the limited number of warships based in Egypt’s Mediterranean harbors, hundreds of merchant galleys left these ports annually and these also required a considerable number of oarsmen. We can thus assume that Egypt’s coastal ports had a floating population that was searching for work on the many ships, both military and commercial, that departed these harbors. The pay was good by the standards of the day and the risks of facing combat were relatively small.Another 13 oarsmen (16.25%) came from Cairo and its vicinity, while 12 oarsmen (15%) were of Upper Egyptian origin. These figures give some indication of the mobility of Egyptian society as well as the cosmopolitan social mix in Egypt’s port cities at the end of the sixteenth century. We are familiar with merchants and scholars travelling throughout the Islamic world in search of profits and knowledge, but we seldom find evidence of members of the lower social orders, other than pilgrims, undertaking extensive journeys. The lists of oarsmen indicate that many of the volunteers had made the pilgrimage to Mecca or were the sons of pilgrims, assuming that the sobriquet “al‑Ḥāǧǧ” indicates a true pilgrim and not just a casual honorific. This group of oarsmen appears to have, therefore, broad travel experience. Many came from districts in Upper Egypt far from the sea in search of employment. While our documents do not indicate if any of the oarsmen had previous experience at sea, it can be assumed that most of them were at least familiar with oars, for they came from towns on the Nile or its canals and probably had pulled oars on river craft. Those coming from coastal towns such as Rašīd, Dumyāṭ, Burullus or Manzala probably had previous experience at sea.The backgrounds of the oarsmen are varied. We find several who are retainers (tābiʿ), suggesting they are tied to a “master” in some form of legal relationship, or to a “patron”, yet they receive the same standard pay as everyone else. Fathers and sons also volunteered for service, as did several brothers and colleagues (rafīq). Some of the oarsmen are identified as having other skills, such as cook (ṭabbāḫ), camel driver (ǧammāl), butcher (ǧazzār), basket-maker (qaffāṣ) or archer (qawwās), indicating they had a lower middle class standing.The process of recruitment and payment for the 26 oarsmen assembled for service on Mustafa Bey’s galliot in the late summer of 1632 appears to be the same as it was in 1598, with payment in qurūš instead of dinars. Likewise, the distribution of places of origin of the oarsmen for Mustafa Bey’s galliot is similar to that of the oarsmen recruited in 1598. We find that the 26 oarsmen came from the Delta region (especially from Rašīd), Cairo and Upper Egypt, but none this time from abroad. We do not find non-Muslims or North Africans among the oarsmen in the two galleys, nor are there any apparent criminals. Slaves were almost never used as rowers in Egypt.The analysis of the origins of the oarsmen recruited in 1598 and 1632 indicates that the ships’ complements came from villages and towns spread throughout Egypt, from Cairo and Upper Egypt as well as from the Delta, and included in 1598 a small percentage of Syrians. The oarsmen were free-born Muslims who volunteered for seasonal service and who received their pay in advance, as was the custom. Egypt’s need for oarsmen was much less than the requirements of the imperial navy in Aegean waters where many more galleys had to be outfitted and many more warriors and oarsmen had to be mustered. In the central Ottoman lands the sultans had established a broad array of tax farms and levies to provide the men and material sufficient to support the fleet’s annual campaigns. Among these was the levy of men from the households of specific districts and from other households or communities to pay for and support each oarsman. This system was unknown in Egypt.In both the central lands and in Egypt recruitment was well organized and was supervised by an appropriate qāḍī who kept precise records of all transactions pertaining to the recruitment. He received from the treasury the money sufficient to pay the oarsmen in advance, and distributed it through intermediaries to the men who were mustered. He forwarded to the captains of the ships complete lists of the names of the rowers and their pay, notified the government of this information, and finally recorded a copy of all this information in his court’s day-book, or siǧill. In Egypt the qāḍī passed to the sheikh of the guild (ṭāʾifa) of muqaddimīn the money he had been assigned by the administration to produce the necessary number of oarsmen. The guild sheikh in turn distributed to his individual guild-members the necessary amount to cover the salaries of the oarsmen each was assigned to bring forward. We do not know how large the membership of this guild was.The authorities preferred to recruit free men, not slaves or criminals, though in times of necessity this might be done, employed them only for seasonal campaigns, and paid them a standard wage in advance for their service. To save the expense of maintaining them when the ships were not at sea and their service was not needed, the oarsmen were released from duty at the end of the campaigning season. They appear to have been of lower social standing and perhaps found the pay offered by the government for their service as oarsmen to be worth the risk of possible combat. The six documents reported in this study thus provide some insight into the well organized recruitment of Egyptian oarsmen for service on Ottoman galleys harbored in Egypt’s Mediterranean ports around the end of the sixteenth century and the early decades of the seventeenth century. It is to be hoped that more documents of this type will be reported in the future to shed additional light on the organization of the various skilled groups working in the shipyards and on the ships, on the process of recruitment and upon the oarsmen themselves.