The British historian Norman Stone suggested many continuities between the Eastern Roman and Ottoman empires such as the "zeugarion" tax of Byzantium becoming the Ottoman "Resm-i çift" tax, the "pronoia" land-holding system that linked the amount of land one owned with one's ability to raise cavalry becoming the Ottoman "timar" system, and the Ottoman measurement for land the "dönüm" was the same as the Byzantine "stremma". Stone also pointed out that despite the fact that Sunni Islam was the state religion, the Eastern Orthodox Church was supported and controlled by the Ottoman state, and in return to accepting that control became the largest land-holder in the Ottoman Empire. Despite the similarities, Stone argued that a crucial difference was that the land grants under the "timar" system were not hereditary at first. Even after land grants under the "timar" system became inheritable, land ownings in the Ottoman Empire remained highly insecure, and the sultan could and did revoke land grants whenever he wished. Stone argued this insecurity in land tenure strongly discouraged "Timariots" from seeking long-term development of their land, and instead led the "timariots" to adopt a strategy of short term exploitation, which ultimately had deleterious effects on the Ottoman economy.