In Central Asia, agriculture is exclusively in the hands of the Persian slaves; commerce and business with the Tadjiks, Hindoos, and Jews; for even the Œzbegs, settled there for centuries, meditate robbery and war, and if they can procure no foreign enemy they attack each other mutually in bloody brother strife.
As concerns intellectual capacity, I have found that the Turk is everywhere far inferior to other Asiatic nations, namely, the Iranian and Semitic; and that, through narrowness of mind, he loses those prerogatives which his superiority in other respects would acquire for him. This weakness is denoted by the word Türklük (Turkdom), of which Kabalik (coarseness), and Yogunluk (thickness), are synonyms. By Türklük, one understands also rudeness and roughness in manners; and if here and there this defect is palliated by the appellation, Sadelik (simplicity), still, for the most part, they are subjoined to the Turkish name as insulting epithets. As the Osmanli is over-reached by the Armenian, Greek, and Arab; so is the Œzbeg baffled by the subtle and yielding Tadjik, and the no less crafty and avaricious Hindoo. Whether this is to be ascribed to a national defect or to an extreme nonchalance, it were hard to determine; still, it is highly remarkable that the Turk in the far east, as well as in the immediate vicinity of the civilised western country, shuns meditation, and that nowhere are his attempts at wit particularly brilliant. This disadvantage is partially the reason that among the Turks more honesty, frankness and confidence, is to be met with than among the remaining nations of Asia.
Türklük, by which strangers understand the above-named fault, is often used by the Turks themselves as a mark of plainness, simplicity, and uprightness. The lights and shades of Türklük have been at all times observable and discoursed on, whenever parallels are drawn between the character of the Turks and of other nations, especially the Persians. People praise the acuteness, the refined manners of the latter; but still, he who wants to find a faithful servant, an attached soldier, or an upright man, will always give the preference to the Turks. Therefore, we find in earliest times that foreign princes liked to use Turkish troops; they call them into their country, and invest their officers with the highest dignities; and as bravery, perseverance, and love of governing, is more innate in them than in any other Asiatic people, it is very easy to explain how they rise from simple mercenaries to governors; and how they subjugated Iranian and Semitic peoples, from their home up to the Adriatic, many of whom are still ruled by them. In my opinion, it is not only superiority of physical powers which has sustained the Turkish dynasties upon foreign thrones, and still does so: this is also greatly ascribable to their superiority of character. They are unpolished, and by nature wild, uncultivated, but seldom cruel out of malice. They enrich themselves at the cost of their subjects, but again divide generously the collected treasures. They are severe towards their subordinates, but seldom forget the duties that they have to fulfil towards the latter, as patriarchal heads. In a word, in all deeds and works of the Turks a sort of kindness is perceptible, which is, perhaps, more to be ascribed to indolence and laisser-aller, than to a fixed purpose to do good; but still it works as a virtue, whatever may be its origin.