Abstract
In this article we explore the validity of the argument that the timar system, starting with the last quarter of the sixteenth century, was crumbling financially and therefore was unable to perform its military obligations. Based on the energy requirements of an “average” timar contingent together with their horses we calculated the actual money cost of maintaining such a unit in seven different campaigns. We also calculated the depreciation cost of the weaponry in these campaigns. We compared these costs with the annual tax revenue of an “average” timar. We found no evidence of any such financial weakness with the conclusion that the timar system was perfectly viable in the two centuries under consideration. 
 Keywords: , , , ,,
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
