>>/40243/
> non-feudal
The timariot system is a version of feudalism. The important characteristic of feudalism is that the basis of both the economy and the military is the land holdings. Sure a "true" feudalism has the chain of vassals, or that the estates are inheritable, but these are just secondary characteristics, a flavor, so to speak. But maybe it just depends how strict we are with the definitions
But I do agree as a whole the Ottomans statecraft was less feudal than Europe's most characteristic feudal states.
But how much was the result of Byzantine heritage? Ottomans had other sources of influence, I read for example their accounting practices came from the Il-khanate. I can also imagine Arabic and Persian effects, tho the whole Middle East was an amalgamation of various heritages including Greek and Roman in the first place.
> There was a power vacuum in a region
I would interested in the question: who else if not the Ottomans? Sure were competing players on the field. And why the Ottomans were the one who won the lotería. What was in them that were more than the others.
>>/40248/
> huge armies
Most of their armies consisted of poorly equipped and trained footmen and cavalry (although the akinjis were very effective in classic light cavalry roles). Sipahis were meh. The chief achievements were the Janissary and the artillery corps.