“Unveiling the Crown: The Surprising Truth Behind a Medieval Monarch’s Real Power!”
However absolute, the rule of the Caliph required the employment of regional and local governors. Unlike European barons, who inherited their title from their parents, local Abbasid governors had to be appointed directly by the Caliph, via a ‘deed of investiture’. This method favoured meritocracy, but it also ensured that the territories of the Caliphate would be administered by loyal officials, a direct projection of the sovereign’s power.
Local officials, once appointed, had pretty much free reign in how they administered their cities and regions, especially if distant from the capital Baghdad. The central government only interfered when trouble was brewing, or when the taxes went unpaid. .
Another difference from European kingdoms was the centralisation of military power:
‘The army, too, belonged to the court, the nucleus of it being concentrated in the Caliph’s residence.’
European kingdoms still relied on baron’s armies for funding and manpower, while the Abbasid Caliphate was already able to pay for and maintain a centralised military. How could they afford so much cash?
Well, first of all the Abbasid Caliphate controlled some of the most lucrative land trade routes in the world, as it was strategically placed along the legendary Silk Road.
Then, came the worldwide and well-established tradition of rapine war, i.e. raiding enemy territory to plunder their riches.
Next, good old boring taxation.
And when the Caliph was short on cash, he could apply the practice of Iqta, sometimes mistakenly described as equivalent to the feudal system. The Iqta was actually a land grant, awarded to army officers for limited periods of time. The lands granted as part of the Iqta were owned by non-Muslims, who paid the kharaj, a type of property tax.
