395

I.
Introduction to Fifteenth Century Ottoman Empire.
II.
Motives Behind Writing of Chronicles.
III.
Self- View of the Ottomans, Titles and Genealogies.
IV.
The Ottomans, Gazi’s Or Not?
V.
Our Chronicler’s Portrayal of Ottoman Policies.

Chapter I- Introduction to Fifteenth Century Ottoman Empire.
The capture of Constantinople under Mehemmed II (r. 1444-46, 1451-81) in the spring of 1453 AD, forever changed the political and social nature of the Ottoman state. Not only did the capture of Constantinople bring about the second phase in the Ottoman monarchy’s transition from a grand khanship to a bureaucratic institutional emperorship1 the Ottoman Turks and the Byzantine Greeks were also forced to embark on a new set of, not always smooth, political relations with each other. Like any other culture and society, the Ottoman state too, had its own voiced and unvoiced assumptions. Which reflected on both the Byzantine and Turkish sides the political and social peoccupations of different segments of, Ottoman society, which ultimately sought an audience through historical sources. In this case fifteenth century chronicles, which were produced for a number of reasons within cultural and intellectual milieu that reflected the political happenings of the period. To reconstruct an accurate chronological history of what actually happened within the Ottoman domain sup to the emergence of chronicle writing in the Ottoman empire, is not the main preoccupation here. This has been undertaken by most Ottomanists, notably Imber.2 Thus to an extent this would prove fruitless considering that I feel that an appreciation of what our fifteenth century chroniclers deemed ‘history’ and its implications to be, far more important.
The aim of this theses is not to provide a strict chronological account of Ottoman history. Although chronicle writing as a genre and thus the roles of our chroniclers, ‘ Aşık Paşa- Zade ( 1392-93?- 1502?)3 and Kritoboulos (1405?- 1470?) cannot be fully appreciated if we do not consider the political developments in their period. Political developments that ultimately led them to write their chronicles. Upon the plea of the Byzantine co- emperor John Cantacuzenos, (r.1347-54) fort he newly established Ottoman emirate to aid him in a civil war, the advancement of the Ottomans into Rumeli to the delight of Orhan the then emir ( r.1324-62) was made considerably easier. The increasing tempo of the Ottomans territorial advance into Rumeli ipso facto ensured that the interaction between the Turks and the Byzantine Greeks became intensified. When Orhan married the daughter of John Cantacuzenos
1 Fletcher, “ Turco Mongolian Monarchic Tradition in the Ottoman Empire” in Harvard Ukrainian Studies, ( 1979-1980).
2 Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1481. The ISIS Press; lstanbul (1990).
3 Scbolarly consensus pertaining to the exact birth and death dates of our chronicler does not exist. The above dates are those of lnalcık’s, ‘ How to Read ‘ Aşık Paşa- Zade’ in Heywood and lmber (Ed) Studies in Ottoman Hİstory. ISIS Press; lstanbul (1994). See the following for variations: Atslz, Osmanlı Tarihleri, Türkiye Yayınevi; lstanbul (1949) and Köprülü, article ‘ Aşık Paşa- Zade’ in lslam Ansiklopedesi, Vol. 1 lstanbul Maarif Matbaası; lstanbul (1940).
in the latter half of the fourteenth century, the Byzantine commentator Nicephoros Gregoras in his letters refers to the whole affair as a wholly shameful thing,4 whereas in his own history, Cantacuzenos narrales the incident in a totally positive way, stressing his daughters loyalty to Christianity despite her marriage to a Muslim.5 The above example provides an insight into the very complex but a the same time pragmatic relations between the Byzantines and the Ottomans which were to last for centuries to come. This was despite the increasing centralisation of the Ottoman state. The political and social interactions between the above two peoples will form the major theme of this theses, vis-a-vis our chroniclers and will thus be dealt with in greater depth later on.
The Ottoman emirate (beylik) became sedentary and thus increasingly bureaucratised. This can be likened to lbn Khaldun’s model of history where a nomadic state through a cyclical process becomes sedentary with the ruler being accustomed to a bureaucratic life of luxury and thus abandons his nomadic roots. This illustrates an important process in the Ottoman emirate’s transition to state and then to empire. This is the stage where it becomes clear that the ruler of the newly founded state, perhaps subconsciously, is trying to exclude those who came to power with him from having a share of his prestige: ‘ He keeps those who share the same ‘asabiyah and royal house as him, from positions of power.’6 ln the case of the Ottomans, nomads were not the only historical players who physically helped to expand the borders of the polity from its inception in the late thirteenth century. Those intent to executing gaza (Holy War) were more than likely a historical reality as well as those “restless elements” that offered their services wherever a holy war was in progress and wherever booty might be expected.”7 ln addition to and intertwined with the above, dervishes, and all kinds of people wrapped in the garb of warrior- dervish possessing different religious orientations8, warriors and ahi (those involved in religions and trade oriented brotherhoods) elements all formed the part of the Uc march frontier of the Ottoman- Byzantine borders.
The colourful frontier depicted by religious and cultural ‘heterodoxy’ and ‘heterogeneity’ well stressed by Wittek and Köprülü9 in their writings on the origins of the Ottoman empire, existed in parallel to the long established Perso- lslamic statecraft which had served its Selçukid and llkhanid forebearers well. lndeed, the slow establishment of institutions on the Uc frontier regions, which typified lslamic
4 Runciman, Byzantine Historians and the Ottoman Turks, ‘in Lewis and Hold (Ed) Historians of the Middle East. London, New York and Princeton; Oxford University Press, p273 (1962).
5 İbid, p273.
6 Ibn Khaldun (translation Rosenthal) The Muqaddimah, An Introduction to History. London; Routledge and Kegan Paul, p141 (1967)
7 Barihold, Turkestan down to the Mongol lnvasions, 4th Ed; London p215 (1977) direct quote from Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, The Construction of the Ottoman State. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London; University of California Press, p56 (1996).
8 Köprülü, (translation, Leiser) The Origins of the Ottoman Empire. New York, State University Of New York Pres; p83 (1992).
9 See Wittek, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire. The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain And Ireland. Luzac and Co (1938) and Köprülü, İbid.
statecraft, were brought about by the increasing arrival of madrasa tarined students from the main lslamic cities such as Baghdad and Cairo.10 The arrival of trained
administrators and teachers from dynastines with established bureaucratic lslamic institutions, ensured that these teacher and ‘ulema (intellectuals) figures laid the bureaucratic foundations of the Ottoman state. The argument that the crucial difference between the hinterland and the frontiers has to be acknowledged in terms of their social structure and cultural components,11 is a must, if the centralisin policies of the Ottoman rulers and how they ultimately disgruntled certain elements within their society is to be understood. Thus there existed frontier (border) based societies whose people had nothing in common with the developing bureaucratic orthodox Islamic structures in the political centre.
It was Bayezid I (r.1389-1402) who has been seen as starting the ‘centralising’ policies of the Ottoman state through the development of institutions which later came to be seen as pivotal forces around which centralisation found force. Although in reality institutions such as the janissaries (Sultan’s standing infantry army) and the devshirme (process by which the janissaries were recruited) had been in existence before the reing of Beyazıd I. Indeed, Demetriades has quite successfully argued that the devshirme had its origins during and possibly before the period 1383- 1387 under the Uc beys.12 But it was Bayezıd I who before he was rudely interupted by Timur in 1402 continued the tradition of expanding the devshirme and made use of the Kul’s (officer- servants) obtained from the practice more extensively in civil and social positions. Thus slowly excluding those elements such as nomads and warriors, who had helped to establish the Ottoman state. The argument that it was Bayezıd’s successes in the state- centralising field that attracted Timur’s notice is also noteworthy.13 The bureaucracy and state institutions came to be more and more staffed by new non- Turkish new Muslim converts, to the dismay of those Muslims, and others who had been loyal to the Ottomans from the beginning. The astute observation that these is little in Bellini’s portrait portroyal of Mehemmed II as a European ruler (1479) to remind us of the fact that the earliest Ottomans were pastoral nomads is relevant here.14
The centralising process within the Ottoman empire and others that accompanied it are important considerations with regard to the themes under discussion. This is because the emergence of the chronicle as a historical genre in the Ottoman State is closely linked to the process of empire building and bureaucratisation. The need for the justification of expansion against both Muslims and infidels within the realm of gaza, coupled with the trend of adopting an empire’s legendary genealogy to be the main instrument of demonstrating the highest levels of sovereignty, are definite precursors to the writing of Ottoman chronicles. As Inalclk has observed,the various histories of the ‘House of’ Osman’ were written towards the
10 Köprülü, op. cit p83, (1992).
11 Kafadar, op.cit, p37 (1995)
12 Demetriades, ‘Some Thoughts on the Origin of the Devshirme’in Zachariadou (ed) The Ottoman Emipate (1300-1389). Crete University Press; (1993).
13 Fretcher, op.cit, p245 (1979-80).
14 Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies; Bloomington, p1 (1983).
end of the fifteenth century as a result of the consciousness of having established a great empire.15 But even at the empire’s politicalb and territorial apogee, tensions
arising from the above concerns did exist between Sultan and subject. The resentment against the Çandarl I family who attained great political position within the Ottoman bureaucracy and held prominence for decades at vezirial level, in Mehemmed II’s reing, is voiced in Ottoman chroniclers, especially Aşık Paşa-Zade as will become clear later. The abolition of private owned vakıfs (walf) in order to increase the state revenue under the Conqueror and a cut back in financial benefits to dervish elements, including our chronicler were all part and parcel of fifteenth century Ottoman policy. This along with the continuing shift in patronage allegiances within the ‘House of ‘Osman’ ensured that certain members of the elite within literary and social circles began to feel hard done by.
Now a brief introduction has been given to the political themes affecting those persons directly or indirectly involved with the Ottoman House in the above period, it is time to familiarise ourselves with our two chroniclers. And the respective milieu within which they wrote in, in order to justify why some sort of a comparison can be made between the two authors. The Byzantine chronicler Michael Kritoboulos of Imbros first appears in the Byzantine sources in 1444AD, when Cyriacus of Ancona visited him on the island of Imbros.16Kritoboulos was born in about 1405 on the island of Imbros which is situated to the West of Gallipoli. The island is historically important an being the main springboard used by the Ottomans to expand into the Aegean after 1354. It is known that Kritoboulos who was a member the Greek notable elite, was granted the governorship of Imbors in 1456 by Mehemmed II and remained as governor until 1466, when he fled to Istanbul after the Venetian occupation of the island.17 Kritoboulos’s acceptance of the Ottoman Turkish invaders and the fact that he rather pragmatically realised the inevitability of the Ottoman conquests in the Byzantine domains makes him unique as a contemporary Byzantine chronicler. In this Kritoboulos resembles the grandfather of the historian Ducas who refused to escape the advance of the Turks, believing that a change of address would not prove fruitful due to the fast tempo of the Ottoman territorial advance.18 In the words of Runciman, “his importance is that he belonged to the party among the Greeks who saw that Ottoman dominion had come to stay and who believed in adjusting themselves as best as possible to altered circumstances.”19
But Kritoboulos cannot be placed as being sympathetic to Ottoman domination per se, if an examination of the thonghts and ideas that existed in the Byzantine intellectual milieus is not made. Ultimately despite being unique in the blase manner with which he accepted the
15 Inalcık, ‘The Rise of Ottoman Historiography’, in Lewis and Holt (Ed) Historians of the Middle East. London; Oxford University Press, p152(1962).
16 Talbot, article ‘Kritohoulos’in (Ed) Kazhdan, Talbot et al. The Oxford Distionary of Byzantium, Vol.2.Oxford University Press; New York and Oxford (1991).
17 Ibid, p1159.
18 Runciman, op. cit p274 (1962).
19 İbid, p275.
Ottoman Turks, was be really distinct as a historian of his period? The view that as the territories of the Byzantine Empire began to shrink after the Turkish success at Manzikert in 1071AD, the empire became more artistic and ‘high culture’ received new life is quite common among Byzantinists.20 In a period when a crumbling administration failed to stem terriorial loss and to ward off the Turkish armies, it has been argned that in contrast to the
political decline caused mainly by civil war the intellectual life of Byzantium had “never shone so brilliantly as in those two sad centuries.”21 The rejuvenation of historiography in the period went hand in hand with the intensive incorporation of the classical style in the works of the contemporary authors. Kritoboulos is an excellent example of such a historian. In his history of Mehemmed II’s reign spanning from 1451 to 67, he writes in a very flowery literary style in imitation of Thucydides and in true classical style, inventing lengthy orations for Mehemmed II and gives classical names to the Turks and other groups. As a historian, he has often been considered to be of second-class calibre in comparison to other historians of the period such as Phrantzes, Ducas and Chalcocondyles and has been described as being careless and inaccurate in his sources by prominent historians.22 Thus through the general criteria by which a historian is judged, in terms of methodology and the usage of sources, Kritoboulos may not be considered a original historian within this category, but is certainly distinct where the following is concerned. In a period when the polemies surrounding the possible union of Eastern Byzantium with the West were rife, Kritoboulos is a good example of an anti-unionist historian who instead turns to the eulogisation of the Ottomans, perhaps partly to ignore the whole intellectual debate altogether.
Kritoboulos as a historian is extremely valuable for the purpores for this study, not only because he eulogises the Ottomans, but also because in comparison with Aşık Paşa- Zade he was an author who tried to steer clear of criticising the subjects of his history. Kritoboulos was simply a member of the educated Byzantine elite who as a sceptic simply had no time to wait for God’s angel to awaken the sleeping emperor in order to remove the Turks.23 With the capture of Constantinople, the classical Byzantine view of the Byzantine empire being ruled by a saviour emperor who was the Vicar of Christ was called into question.24 Like the Muslims of the Middle East who had to deal with the Crusades, the Byzantines saw the Ottomans as a punishment sent by god, for those who “live with their wives before marriage and the monks who cohabit with the nuns.”25 The history of Kritoboulos, which is usefull from the perspective of any Ottomanist because he attempted to understand one of the several strands of the elitist Ottoman political culture, is a far cry from some of the general Byzantine histories produced after 1453, which sought to prove the inferiority of Islam in contrast to Christianity.
20 See Runciman, The Last Byzantine Renaissance. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge (1970) and Moles, ‘Nationalism and Byzantine Greece’ in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Vol.10 (1969).
21 Runciman, op.cit, p2 (1970).
22 Runciman, op.cit p275 (1962).
23 Vryonis, ‘Byzantine Artitudes Toward Islam’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, p281. Vol.12; (1971)
24 İbid, p264.
25 İbid, p268.
In contrast to that of Kritoboulos much more historical certainty can be assumed when we examine the early life of Aşık Paşa- Zade. In his Tevarih-l Al-l Osman, as a loyal dervish and soldier of the Ottoman house his history is usefull not only fort he periods it covers, but it allows the modern historian to chart his lifetime and thus to assess his reliability as a historian. Aşık Pasa-Zade informs the reader that he has composed his history from what he has “learned and heard” and that he found a written history of the Ottomans covering up to the reign of Bayezıd I in the
house of Yakhski Fakih the son of Orhan I’s imam Ishak Fakih.26 He comments as follows:
“I remained behind at Geyve, in the house of Yakhshi Fakih, the son of Orhan bey’s imam, for I was ill: it is on the authority of the son of the imam that I relate the menakib of the Ottoman House as far as Yıldırım Khan.” 27
Aşık Pasa-Zade forget close contacts with the Ottoman House very early on in his life. The above narrative refers to the long period of civil war (fitnet devri) ofter the death of Bayezid I when Mehemmed I declared hostilities against his brother. Aşık Paşa-Zade a young teenager28 who was apparently part of Mehemmed’s army fell ill and had to stay behind in Geyve. Aşık Paşa-Zade went on to campaign in several military campaigns always staying loyal to the Ottomans. He was taken into the army of Murad II (r.1421-1437, 1438-1451) and among many campaigns participated in the Ottoman attack against Belgrade in 1438-39. Aşık Paşa-Zade narrates that Murad II himself granted him nine prisoners of war as a reward for his services. But not satisfied with his share of booty Aşık Paşa-Zade kindly requested that he be given horses and akçe (Ottoman currency) as well.29 Again after the fall of Constantinople, Aşık Paşa-Zade was granted a house from properly reserved fort he gazis (those who participated in the Holy War) and throughout his long life enjoyed but at the same time expected spoils, booty and gifts. We know from the Wakfıyya (the deed of endownment of a vakif) of Mehemmed II’s mosque that the home of Aşık Paşa- Zade was located at the Unkapanl market, adjacent to the house of the scholar and first kadi (judge) of Istanbul, Khodja- Zade.30
Thus in hindsight it is easy to understand why our dervish would become disgruntled when the policies of Mehemmed II began to affect him. In a period when no statesman or ally of the Ottoman state remained in favour for long, Aşık Paşa-Zade certainly managed to do just this. The fact that he was a dervish closely connected with the Wafa’iyya order would not have ensured great advancement per se but the various mystic powers attributed to dervishes ensured that the presence of a dervish on the battlefield were always considered to be a good omen. In addition it was believed that the presence of a dervish heightened the gaza zeal among the soldiers.31 During his long life Aşık Pasa-Zade fulfilled the pilgrimage duty to
26 Atsız, op.cit, p91 (1949).
27 Menage, “The Menakib of Yakhshi Faqih” in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. p50. Vol XXVI (1963).
28 Menage, ibid, places Apz’s age at about 13.
29 Atsız, op.cit, p80, (1949).
30 Inalcık, op.cit p141 (1994).
31 İbid, p156.
Mecca (1436) and came to be something of an entrepreneur in Istanbul after its fall in 1453. We know that Aşık Paşa-Zade owned depots and shops in Galata and had to pay the Sultan’s treasury rent for a shop he owned in the region.32
Chapter II- Motives Behind Writing of Chronicles.
Then why is it that both our Byzantine and Turkish chronicler set pen to paper writing their chronicles? Their motives behind writing their chronicles are quite straightforward. As a Byzantine who rose to the position of governor of Imbros under Mehemmed II in 1456, Kritoboulos’s chronicle is dedicated to the Sultan. For all means and purposes Kritoboulos presents him in a panegyric light in a rather straightforward manner. He clearly states the primary object of his history.
“ My object is rather to present the deeds of the now reigning great Sultan Mehmed, excellent as they are and in every respect surpassing those of his predecessors. I give them as a result of my own study and from the accounts of my contemporaries, as a model and an excellent example to be followed by all who love bravery and courage.”33
Kritoboulos’s ‘History of Mehmed the Conqueror’ was thus written specifically for presentation to the Sultan at Istanbul. This is why the only known manuscript is in the Seraglio Library in Istanbul and belonged to the Sultan.34 This is not the case with Aşık Paşa-Zade. Several manuscripts of Aşık Pasa-Zade’s Tevarih-I Al-I Osman exist.35 Therefore the likelihood that the ‘original’ version of Aşık Pasa-Zade has undergone a process of redaction and editing over the centuries is highly likely. Like Kritoboulos, Asık Pasa-Zade’s main aim seeins to be the exaltation of the Ottoman empire but unlike Kritoboulos, Asık Pasa-Zade was himself asked to compile his chronicle most likely by a group of ‘aziz which was a term for dervishes in this period.36 Asık Pasa-Zade did not start the task of writing down his chronicle until he was at least eighty years of age. Thus he quotes from memory excerpts of
32 Inalcık, op.cit p141 (1994).
33 Kritovoulos, ‘History of Mehmed the Conqueror’ (translation) Riggs. Princeton University Press; Princeton, New Jersey, p10 (1954).
34 Spandounes, ‘On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors’ (translation) Nicol. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, PXX, (1997).
35 Atsız, op.cit (1949) provides a very good survey of the relevant manuscripts and in his edition makes use of Giese, ‘ Die Altosmanische Chronik des ‘Asıkpasazade.’ Leipzig, Otto Harrassowitz (1929).
36 Inalcık, op.cit, p144 (1994).
Yakhshi Fakih he read while in his youth, whereas Kritoboulos wrote his history while governor of Imbros and only spans roughly a period of tweenty years. To Kritoboulos the purpose of history is clear.
“Wrote this history in beief… .(so) that events should not remain unrecorded. But ought to be written up and handed down to subsequent generations so that brave deeds, well worth recording, certainlyno less so than of the old heroes, shall not disappear from the knowledge of men, being hidden by time. Thus those who live after us may not be greatly injured by being deprived of such a history and its lessons.”37
The eulogisation of Mehemmed II is the primary aim of Kritoboulos if we examine the above excerpt but a the same time be believed that as well as providing a flattering account of the sovereign, history should be education to remind people of their past. The object of history to Kritoboulos can be likened to the sixteenth century chronicler Tasköprüzade’s views on the purpose of history.
“The object of history is the conditions of the individuals of the past, such as prophets, saints, scholars, sages, poets, kings, rulers, and others. The purpose of it is to become acquainted with the conditions of the past.”38
Clearly, neither Kritoboulos nor Tasköprüzade had entertainment in mind when they wrote their histories. Unlike Kritoboulos Asık Pasa-Zade does not specifically state what he deemed the purpose of history to be. Although the following passage from a poem (nazlm) which tends to repat itself with slight variations throughout the chronicle gives an insight into Asık Pasa-Zade’s views on the purpose of history.
“My Life that has spanned up to this time I have seen a lot of this world The events of my period I have noted down And I have written the goods deeds of the house Of Osman. I said that I should make clear how Genealogy and descent developed.”39
The purpose of history to Asık Pasa-Zade is virtually the same as Kritoboulos’s althought the actual format of their chronicles and the language they use clearly points to the fact that they are different types of historians who ultimately addressed different segments of society. It is the differences between the two chroniclers where style, narrative and perception are concerned which makes a comparison of the two authors worthwhile and at the same time fascinating. The language of Asık Pasa-Zade is simple fifteenth century Ottoman Turkish, a language clearly accessible to most segments of literate Ottoman society. The clues that would lead us to this conslusion are as follows. The clear divison of several short chapters all labelled in some deatil is a typical characteristic of Medieval Middle Eastern literature derived
37 Kritovoulos, (translation Riggs) op.cit p9 (1954).
38 Roseuthal, ‘A History of Muslim Historiography,’ p452. Leiden E.J.Brill; Holland (1952).
39 Atsız, op.cit p91 (1949).
from oral tradition. An example par exellence can be seen through an examination of one of the most famous Turkish epics Dede Korkut, an epic based on oral tradition that was later written down. A couple of the chapter headings from a translation of the tenth/ eleventh century epic are as follows: “How Prince Uruz Son of Prince Kazan was Taken Prisoner” and “Tells the Story of how Salur Kazan was Taken Prisoner and how his Son Uruz Freed him.”40 This is similar to Asık Pasa-Zade’s chronicle which on average has two new chapters on each page, each chapter followed by a poern. For example, the heading of chapter (bab) 53
reads “This Chapter warrates within what period of time Murad Han Gazi captured the town of Hamidi.”41
The use of Persian words was very characteristic of ‘Ottoman high culture.’ The Persian influence gained popularity within the Ottoman empire in the sixteenth century and was employed within Court Chronicles in a period when the empire was at its bureaucratic peak. A good example is the fifteenth century chronicler Tursun Bey who writes in a very flowery style that can be likened more to Kritoboulos than Asık Pasa-Zade. In Asık Pasa-Zade his simple style comes across through the poems which follow each chapter. They simply reiterate the narrative in the chapter but tend to be quick sharp statements which are enjoyable to read and it is usually within these nazlm’s that Asık Pasa-Zade uses the opportunity to make clear the point be is trying to get across, be it criticism or otherwise. In chapter 71 Asık Pasa-Zade narrates how the Karaman emirate encroached on Ottoman territory. This is done in a rather objective manner but when we read the poem of the chapter one line in particular sticks out. “the face and the and the heart of the Karaman is black”42
Silay points to Ahmedi’s use of digressions within his dastan (epic) one of the earliest historical documents of the Ottoman empire, as signs of orality and argues that oral tradition is much more evident in Asık Pasa-Zade.43 Then can the poems that appear at the end of each chapter be considered to be literary ‘digressions’ because they interrupt the flow of the main historical narrative? In addition to this the chronicle of Asık Pasa-Zade contains several ‘answer’ and ‘question’ (sual-cevab) excerpts which he in turn answers after stating the quastion. A scene in which Asık Pasa-Zade would answer questions, such as “why did those Beys not send their ambassador?”44 on the request of those listening in a crowded place or would pose these questions to provoke reaction from the crowd seems likely. Then who was the audience of Asık Pasa-Zade’s “History of the House of Osman”? Certain parts of the historical narrative in Asık Pasa-Zade have been traced back not only to Yakhshi Fakih but to the ‘Anonymous Chronicles’ as well. It is also known that, Uruj and the anonymous Tevarih use each in his own fashion a common source from the emergence of ‘Osman up to 1422.45
40 Lewis (translation), ‘The Book of Dede Korkut.’ Penguin Group; England (1974).
41 Atsız, op.cit p131 (1949).
42 İbid, p149.
43 Silay, “The Usage and Function of Digressions in Ahmedi’s History of the Ottoman Dynasty.” Turcica, XXV (1993).
44 Atsız, op. cit p143 (1949).
45 Inalcık, ‘The Rise of Ottoman Historiography,’ in Historians of the Middle East (Ed) Holt and Lewis. Oxford University Press; London and Toronto (1962).
The earlier fourteenth century material that Asık Pasa-Zade incorporated into his chronicle has been categorised as has been argued above, belonging to the popular genres of epic and to an oral tradition as opposed to a written one.46 Although it is not known whether Asık Pasa-Zade himself performed these oral sessions or whether he did in fact perform to crowds of people by altering the older material he had access to, to fit his own personal style. There are few explanations that can be offered on this particular question in light of the scarcity of historical evidence.
The main andience of Asık Pasa-Zade’s history would have probably been gazi’s which would partly explain the fascination of Asık Pasa-Zade with
presenting the Ottomans as such. Aside from the obvious function of later presenting the Ottoman as being extremely pious when the ‘History of the House of Osman’ reached its written stage. At its oral stages tales of the pious Muslims defeating the infidels would have been a moral boost to the soldiers listening at the time. Therefore I would argue that the chronicle of Asık Pasa-Zade was targeted at a wide audience composed of different social classes. Asık Pasa-Zade would certainly not have had access to classical norms and language47 this would have ensured that his chronicle at its oral stage would not have attracted much attention from those who wrote within this classical tradition. But the actual writing down of the history into chronicle form by the Turkish chronicler surely indicates that he was potentially interested in a diffrent type of audience. Apart from the dervishes who asked Asık Pasa-Zade to compile his chronicle, was his ultimate aim that it would reach Bayezid II (r.1481-1512) in whose reign he completed his chronicle? In any case it would have been safer for Asık Pasa-Zade to sumbit his chronicle to any Sultan but Mehemmed II against whom he indirectly levelled a great deal of criticism.
Both Asık Pasa-Zade and Kritoboulos can be considered the same type of historian in one aspect only. Their ultimate aim was to indulge in the exaltation of the Ottoman House but at the same time to sing their own praises. Kritoboulos stresses his personal involvement in ensuring that the islands of Thasos, Imbros and Lemnos were ceded to Mehemmed II from Byzantine control.48 He stresses that it was his good use of diplomacy and quick thinking that ensured that the islands not only passed to Ottoman hands but also were free from enemy especially Venetian attack. He states this as follows:
“Learning this, Kritovoulos49 halted their impetuosity, encouraged them with well founded hopes, and secretly sent a trustworthy man to Hamza, Governor of Gallipoli… and made and agreement with him not to sail against the islands, nor do them any harm at all… Thus the islands were freed from danger fort he time.”50
Just as Kritoboulos emphasises his role in the expansion of the Ottoman doamins, Asık Pasa-Zade also stresses his personal involvement in Ottoman affairs but in contrast to Kritoboulos, Asık Pasa-Zade tries to demonstrate that his own family played an important role in the establishment and rise of the Ottoman empire.51 This can be pinpoited through various small examples in his chronicle.
46 Imber, op. cit p1 (1990).
47 Silay, op.cit p150 (1993).
48 For detail on this matter see Imber, op.cit pp169-70 (1990).
49 Note that Riggs and some other scholars spell our chronicler’s name as such.
50 Kritovoulos, ‘History of Mehmed the Conqueror,’ (translation Riggs) Princelon University Press; Princeton, p86-87 (1954).
51 Inalcık, op.cit p144 (1994).
For example Asık Pasa-Zade stresses the role of his famous grandfather Asık Pasa as a good dervish during the early years of the Ottoman empire when our Turkish chronicler was not yet on the scene. Phrases such as “Asık Pasa prayed for Orhan”52 when he was able to become ruler after the death of ‘Osman are not uncommon. More significantly, throughout his chronicle Asık Pasa Zade rather subtlety emphasises the role of dervishes in the expansion of the Ottoman empire. This is possibly in order to show how the dervish order he was most closely connected to the Wafa’i Khalifa Ede-Bali53 played a crucial role in the rise of the Ottoman empire. The occasional
references to the prosperity and good will certain dervishes including himself bring to the expanding Ottoman domains can only be considered subtle on the surface. As will become apparent in the next chapter the main theme that encompasses his chronicle is that the Ottomans were essentially gazis,who through their ever-increasing religious zeal expanded their domains. This has to be seen within the context of Asık Pasa-Zade emphasising the role of the perhaps not so “orthodox” gazis fighting for their belief in Allah supported spiritually and morally by the dervish elements who surrounded the Ottomans in the early years before the power of the ‘ulema took hold in the latter half of the fifteenth century.
Thus even through both Asık Pasa-Zade and Kritoboulos indulge in the eulogisation of the Ottoman Sultans the differences which exist between them stem from their respective cultural and social milieus. This can be seen through the fact that Kritoboulos addresses a different kind of audience in comparison to Asık Pasa-Zade. As mentioned above Kritoboulos wrote in a classical Thucydidean style that would only have been accessible to educated nobles of Kritoboulos’s social class who had also been educated within the same literary tradition. His style is most clearly apparent through the speeches he invents and puts into the mounth of the Sultan Mehemmed II. The following section from Kritoboulos narrates the Sultan’s address to his soldiers during the siege of Constantinople.
“My friends and my comrades in the present struggle! I have called you together here, not because I would accuse you of laziness or carelessness in this business, nor try to make you more eager in the present struggle. For a long time past I have noted some of you showing such zeal and Earnesiness for the work that you would willingly undergo…” 54
Kritoboulos can be considered to be an entirely panegyric court historian and his written style obviously reflects this. His chronicle was intended only for the eyes of the Sultan and his close advisors not the general public whom Asık Pasa-Zade addressed. It should not be assumed however that all of the Byzantine historians who wrote around this period incorporated this classical style into their work. George Sphrantzes (1401-1477) who
52 Atsız, op.cit p116 (1949).
53 See Inalcık, op.cit (1994) for a brief insight in the above.
54 Kritoboulos (translation Riggs) op.cit p60 (1954).
became attendant to Manual II Paleologus at the age of seventeen and rose to promotion within the Byzantine household wrote in an unflowery style using a simple language.55 The literary style of Kritoboulos can be likened more to that of Tursun Bey who started writing his history in 1488.56 Like Kritoboulos Tursun Bey was an important figure in local Ottoman administration who belonged to the secretarial (kuttab) class. The English translation of Tursun Bey’s “The History of Mehmed the Conqueror” does not preserve the literary style of the difficult exaggerated, flowery language of the Ottoman Turkish but the following quote at least illustrates that the language Tursun Bey used was more like that of Kritoboulos than Asık Pasa-Zade.
“It was intolerable that Istanbul, surrounded by the lands of Islam,
should survive under a Christian ruler, the so-called Kayser-i Rum, especially since he gave protection within the city walls to pretenders to the Ottoman throne.57
Chapter III- Self-View of the Ottomans, Titles and Genealogies.
The way in which the Ottoman in the fifteenth century perceived themselves can to great extent be gauged from our two chroniclers. But also from the fact that elites within the Ottoman bureaucratic and political hierarchies encouraged the writing of histories of the House of ‘Osman in the fifteenth century. Surely our Byzantine chronicler Kritoboulos would not have wasted his energies compiling his history of Mehemmed II whilst occupying the time consuming post of Governor of Imbros if the had felt that his history would not have been welcome within the Ottoman court. It is important to note that the genre of chronicle writing in the Ottoman empire began to emerge after the frontier elements such as the Uc Beys and others who were constructive in expanding the newly formed emirate in previous centuries were effectively curtailed by the central state.58 This showed that chronicle writing began only after the Ottomans had distanced themselves from their nomadic origins. The sheer existence of Asık Pasa-Zade’s chronicle which can be considered to be the last Ottoman Turkish chronicle that contained a large populist element written in simple Turkish illustrates that even at the peak of Ottoman bureaucracy there never existed a complete break between “the frontier areas and political centres.”59 In the final chapter our chronicler’s responses to the centralisation of the Ottoman state will be discussed but it is first important to set the scene of how the Ottomans perceived themselves.
55 See Sphrantzes, (translation Philippides) “The Fall of the Byzantine Empire.” The University of Massachusetts Fress; Amherst (1980).
56 The date of death for Tursun Bey is not known.
57 Tursun Bey, (translation Inalcık and Murphy) ‘The History of Mehmed the Conqueror.’ Bibliotheca Islamica; Minneapolis and Chicago p33 (1978).
58 See Kafadar, op.cit (1995) Chapter 2 for an excellent discussion of this.
59 İbid, p65.
With the capture of Constantinople the Ottoman state not only changed and expanded territorially but ensured that the acquisition of a Roman city changed the way the Ottomans perceived themselves forever. Attempts by Muslims to capture the city had been made since Busr İbn Abi Arfat in 653AD and lasted most notably until the reign of Bayezid I who laid the foundation stones for Mehemmed II’s capture of the city through his endless military campaigns. Constantinople itself carried great symbolic legitimacy in the Roman imperial tradition so that Mehemmed II now adorned himself with the symbols of Caesar.60 Thus the legitimacy acquired through the possession of Constantinople was a major factor which ensured that instead of the conquest satisfying Ottoman Muslim territorial ambitions they were made boundless. It was after 1453 that the Ottomans began to ‘absorb’ different Aegean principalities such as Bosnia, Serbia and Lesbos. This is well reflected in the words of Kritoboulos
who uses any available opportunity to compare Mehemmed II to the classical emperors of Byzantium especially Alexander the Great.
“When he (Mehemmed II) became heir to a great relain and master of many soldiers… he did not believe that these were enough for him nor was he content with what he had; instead he immediately overran the whole world in his calculations and resolved to rule it in emulation of the Alexanders and Pompeys and Caesars and kings and generals of their sort.”61
Both chroniclers are an excellent source for an insight into the way the Ottomans perceived themselves and the way chroniclers like Kritoboulos perceived them at the peak of their territorial expansion, at a time when the Ottoman state became empire and its bureaucracy reflected this. An examination of the usage of honorific titles by the Ottoman sovereigns allows us to chart their historical development through their own eyes. It is understandable that writing after the capture of Constantinople when the empire was at one of its apoges that Kritoboulos referred to Mehemmed II as Emporer and Sultan. The title of Padishah which was more in line with the ‘Örf ( customary law) traditions of the Ottomans62 as opposed to the title of Sultan which is an Islamic title inherited from earlier Muslim dynasties were both used in this period. Kritoboulos contains no reference to the Ottoman sovereign’s earlier titles of Bey or Khan. This is where an examination of Asık Pasa-Zade’s genealogy of the Ottomans is extremely useful. Our Turkish chronicler cites the genealogy of the Ottomans as follows:
60 Quoted from Fletcher, op.cit p246 (1979/80).
61 Kritoboulos (translation Riggs) op.cit p14 (1954).
62 Inalcık, article “Padishah” in Islam Ansiklopedesi, Milli Eğitim Basım Evi; Istanbul (1964).
“…Sultan Bayazıd Han (Khan) Gazi, ibn-i Sultan Mehmed Han Gazi, ibn-i Sultan Murad Gazi, ibn-i Sultan Mehmed Han Gazi, ibn-i Bayazıd Han Gazi, ibn-i Sultan Murat Han Gazi, ibn-i Orhan Gazi, ibn-i Osman Gazi…”63
Two interesting details surface. Firstly, Asık Pasa-Zade seems to begin using the title of Sultan in the reign of Murad I (r.1362-89) and not before. It could be argued that to Asık Pasa-Zade the Ottoman state and its institutions began to develop along Perso-Islamic lines after 1362, thus he began using the title for those Ottoman rulers he regarded as changing the structure of the Ottoman state. But this line of argument can only be taken so. If we consider that it was actually Bayezid I (r.1389-1402) who Asık Pasa-Zade merely refers to as Han Gazi, who made the first attempts to seriously centralise and change the nature of the Ottoman state by using the non-nomadic kuls he obtained more in civil and military posts. Therefore it is more likely that looking back in hindsight when he began to write his chronicle when he was around eighty years of age, Asık Pasa-Zade realised that it was Bayezid I who started the centralising policies which found culmination under Mehemmed II and reduced the status of certain sections of society such as dervishes like himself. Could it be that he omits the title of Sultan with reference to Bayezid I as an indication to the readers of his chronicle, as to what he really thought about the centralising policies of the Ottoman state.
An examination of honorific titles within the Ottoman empire also points to the possibility that the sometimes fluid and pragmatic political situations in the empire were also reflected through honorific titles. We know that when the Ottoman sovereigns entered into formal contact with Christians through treaties or pacts they referred to themselves as Beys or Emir but when in similar situations with fellow Muslims referred to themselves as Sultan.64 The logic behind this pragmatic policy seems simple. It would have been more important for the Ottomans to stres their Islamic identity through the use of the title Sultan when in contact with fellow Muslims in a period when the Ottomans attempted to justify Military attacks against fellow Muslims as pious Muslims. In contrast to this Christian recipents of Ottoman expansion probably did not feel the need to be reminded of the Ottomans quest of gaza and what this entailed within the context of titulature.
Secondly, like all fifteenth century Ottoman Turkish chroniclers Asık Pasa-Zade traces back Ottoman genealogy to the Selçuk’s, the Oguz Turks and finally Noah. Whether their genealogy was fabricated to legitimise their rule or not will be discussed shortly but the following is fascinating with regard to the issue of genealogy. Byzantine Greek chroniclers also narrated Ottoman genealogy as such in most cases. This points to the existence of a common source or chronicle possibly one that chroniclers such as Kritoboulos and Spandounes had access to. Spandounes narrates the origins of the Ottomans as follows:
“…I can see that they are descended from shepherds of Tartary of the race of one called Ogus. It is said that in the reign of the Sultan Aladin (Selçukid Sultan Alaeddin) who
63 Atsız, Op. cit p92 (1949).
64 Inalcık, op.cit p491 (1964).
was lord of various places and of Konya… a number of famillies of Tartars came to live on his territory, among them that of Ottoman.”65
The flexibility of the usage of honorific titles becomes evident through an examination of Asık Pasa-Zade. He stresses the Islamic descendancy of the Ottomans from the Selçuk’s but at the same time refers to the Ottomans as Khans as well as gazis. From a twentieth century point of view but perhaps not from a fifteenth century dervish-Sufi viewpoint, this seems to be a contradiction in terms. It could be argued that the employment of the non-Islamic honorific title of Khan for the Ottomans, a title never assumed by the Selçuks, is in contradiction to the theory that asserts that the Ottomans came to Anatolia as fighters for Islam as descendants of the Selçuks.66 Asık Pasa-Zade not only stresses the Selçukid-Ottoman link but goes as far as to show the Ottomans claiming independence and autonomy vis-a-vis the Sultanate of Rum. When ‘Osman was told by the dervish Dursun Faklıh that he needed permission from the Selçuk Sultan in order to repopulate and build the bureaucracy of a newly conquered province, he answered as follows:
“I took this city with my sword. What concern (dahl) has the Sultan in this, that I should permission (izin) from him? Allah, who made him Sultan has through the gaza given me the rank of Khan. And if the Sultan would make a
claim on me by virtue of that Sancak (the Standard that ‘Ala’eddin had sent him), I carried that standard into battle against the infidel. And if he says: “I am of the line of Selçuk,” I say that I an the descendant of Gök Alp…”67
Asık Pasa-Zade clearly aimed to portray the Ottomans as having established their right to independent sovereignty through their execution of gaza. This leads us to the question of to which extent our two chroniclers portrayed the Ottomans as Allah fearing gazi’s.
Chapter IV- The Ottomans Gazi’s or not?
At its simplest level, a gazi is a Muslim who participates in the Holy War against the infidel. Ottoman distionaries complied between the fifteenth and seventeenth century list the definition of a gazi as someone “who intends (warfare) against the enemy.”68 The importance of the Islamic fight against the infidel has been an intricate part of Muslim history and ultimately historiography for centuries. The need to record the Prophet’s military encounters with the Arab non-believer (magazi) formed part of early sacred history and contributed greatly to the formation of the Muslim historical consciousness. Historical sources from the Islamic Medieval period not only record the deeds, sometimes legendary, of famous Turkish
65 Spandcunes (translation Nicol) op.cit p9 (1997).
66 Köprülü, op.cit (1992) the Turkish Nationalist acholar was the most ardent advocale of this theory.
67 Atsız, op.cit p103 (1949).
68 Tekin, “XIV Yüzyılın’a Yazılmış Gazilik Tarikası “Gaziliğin Yolları” Adlı Bir Eski Anadolu Türkçesi Metni”, Journal of Turkish Studies p140 (1989).
gazis but also provide an insight into the prerequisites and principles of gaza. In an important source dating from the early Ottoman period we learn that in order to participate in gaza a Muslim must be in good health, mentally stable and strong enough to withstand the experience of war. As the Turks from their first appearance in the Middle East have always been on the offensive militarily it is interesting to note that if the Muslims attack the enemy land it is not required for all Muslims to participate in the Holy war. Gaza for all Muslims is only compulsory when it is Muslim lands that are under attack from infidels.69
Now onto the crucial question of how our two chroniclers portray the Ottomans in terms of being advocates of gaza. Asık Pasa-Zade portrays the Ottomans as excellent gazis who lived solely for the fulfilment of the fight against the infidel. Asık Pasa-Zade narrates how ‘Osman’s father, before the establishment of the Ottoman Beylik, sent his son Sarı Yatı to the Selçuk Sultan to ask for a homeland in which to settle. The message that ‘Osman’s father wished to convey to the Sultan was clear:
“ He sent his son Sar I Yat I to Sultan Ala’eddin and said “show us a homeland where we will settle and perform gaza… the Sultan showed them a homeland between Bilecük (Bilecik) and Sögüd (Sögüt).”70
It is easy to see that Asık Pasa-Zade stresses the role of the Ottomans as gazis because as a chronicler of the Ottoman dynasty he would wish to show gaza as a legitimating device of sovereignty. In order to justify Ottoman sovereignty and continued expansion Asık Pasa-Zade uses a simple but very convenient example. Whenever a drum was beaten the Ottomans apparently rose to their feet and our chronicler justifies this custom through one of the ‘question’ and ‘answer’ sessions that appear throughout his chronicle.
“Question: Other sovereigns do not have this custom. Why does the house of ‘Osman have this custom?
Answer: This custom has two meanings. The first meaning is that they are gazis. The beating of the drum is the call for gaza. This is as if to say ‘prepare for gaza.’ In response to this, they rise to their feet, as if to say ‘We are ready for gaza for the sake of Allah.’’’71
Asık Pasa-Zade makes it known that all, those who participated in gaza would be rewarded with booty by the Ottomans. In one chapter we are informed that after one particular
69 İbid, p144.
70 Atsız, op.cit p93 (1949).
71 İbid, p98.
conquest each gazi was given a village each as their reward.72 Could it be argued that Asık Pasa-Zade presents the Ottomans as fighters for their faith in the strict orthodox sence? An analysis of Asık Pasa-Zade’s chronicle reveals that according to his own dervish-Sufi standards the Ottomans were indeed pious Muslims. In spite of this he happily narrates how Orhan was married to a Byzantine princess and places great emphasis on ‘Osman’s special friendship with an infidel named Köse Mihal.73 Also, Asık Pasa-Zade goes to great lengthsto justify Ottoman encroachment against fellow Muslims. In one chapter he stresses how Bayezid I is justified in doing just this because he used the means of justice and not force whilst attacking fellow Muslims.74 The chronicle of Asık Pasa-Zade reveals that to a great extent the Ottoman state expanded not only on the merits of war against the infidel but pragmatism also. A policy of making friendly acquaintance with infiel Christians in order to fulfil their territorial expansion was not uncommon. The Selçukid practice of constantly changing allegiances and siding with Christians against fellow Muslims especially during the long period of the Crusades was certainly continued by the Ottomans. Before the capture of Constantinople in times of civil war rebel Ottoman princes always sought refuge with the Byzantine emperors. Indeed, one of Mehemmed II’s reasons for attacking Constantinople was that the Emperor Constantine was protecting a distant cousin of the Sultan’s within Byzantium.
Then in comparison to Asık Pasa-Zade how does Kritoboulos as a Byzantine Greek observer view the Ottomans? Not surprisingly, the concept of gaza does not exist in the history of Kritoboulos. Instead Kritoboulos at every opportunity tells the reader that Mehemmed II was a great warrior and soldier. Before Constantinople was laid siege to by the Ottomans Kritoboulos quotes Mehemmed II as having said the following:
“And I maintain that we must undertake this, and fight quickly, and must accept war and capture the city with all determination speed, or never lay claim to our realm any more, or to its possessions as our own, or to think of anything as certain for the future”75
Our Byzantine chronicler goes to great lengths to portray Mehemmed II as a soldier who always commanded his troops personally and planned and instigated every detail of any possible military attack himself. The never-ending zeal of the Sultan who is determined to succeed militarily is a theme cleverly incorporated by Kritoboulos in his history:
“The Sultan had determined by all means to get the harbour and the Horn under his control so that he might attack the city from all sides.”76
We learn from Kritoboulos’s portrayal of Mehemmed II that our chronicler deemed him to be brave, full of zeal and a good leader. But there is no meantion of Holy war or
72 İbid, p106.
73 Aceording to Imber, probably fabricated most of the tales of Mihal himself. See article “Canon And Apocrypha” in Heywood and Imber op.cit (1994).
74 İbid, op 135-6.
75 Riggs op.cit, p29 (1954).
76 İbid, p50.
anything resembling an appreciation of gaza by Kritoboulos. This raises some interesting questions concerning the Ottomans as warriors for their faith. If the Ottomans were pious gazis’ then would Kritoboulos whose primary aim was the eulogisation of the Ottoman dynasty not have at least mentioned the Ottomans as warriors for their faith? Not necessarily, although Kritoboulos was indeed a subject of the Ottoman empire, as a Byzantine who only came into Ottoman service after 1453 AD he cannot be expected to have understood and to have incorporated every indigenous Ottoman term or concept into his history. In comparison to Kritaboulos, Spandounes uses the term caxi which translates as gazi, for the early Ottomans. In his sixteenth centary text Spandounes defines the term as meaning “courageous and bold.”77 Spandounes’s definition matches exactly the portrayal of Mehemmed II by Kritoboulos. Does this mean that contemporary Byzantine historians believed the early Ottomans to be “secular” warriors who fought bravely but with no notion of religion in their minds? This is one explanation but it could also be argued that Byzantine historians did not subconsciously wish to portray the Ottomans who were after all unwante invaders as pious Muslims.78 Or we should just accept that our two chroniclers and others of their period wrote in accordance to their social milieu and what was deemed to be important at a particular time. Therefore each chronicler would develop themes which were firstly relevant to them and secondly understandable to them.
Imber is one of a group of scholars who argue that the silence of the Byzantine sources on this issue means that the Ottomans could not have been gazi’s otherwise the fifteenth century Byzantine historians would have not failed to have incorporated this theme into their histories. In addition Imber argues that by the sixteenth century the “Ottoman dynasty possessed an elaborate myth which legitimised its rule in the eyes of its own subjects and justified its wars against neighbourning monarchs.”79 The amin gist of Imber’s argument is that the Ottomans ultimately legitimised their rule through creating a fictitious genealogy and by describing “its rise to power in terms of religious…ideas of orthodox Islam.”80 The main outlet for the “myths” the Ottomans developed found life in the Ottoman chronicles written in he fifteenth century, Asık Pasa-Zade being a good example. By claiming descent from the Selçuks and by stressing that they originated from the Oguz Turks the Ottomans were able to justify waging war against the Muslim Safavid dynasty by claiming to be nobler than other Muslim dynasties. As we saw in the last chapter both Asık Pasa-Zade and Kritoboulos incorporate what Imber would call this fictitious genealogy into their histories. The historical content of the genealogy cannot be proven one way or the other. Its sheer existence gives an insight into the way the Ottomans regarded themselves as expressed through chroniclers at their dynastic apogee. The concept of Holy War did certainly change to meet the growing bureaucratisation of the Ottoman empire and with time the ‘ulema came to determine the
77 See Imber op.cit p118 (1994) as well as history of Spandounes.
78 Kafadar, op.cit p89 (1995).
79 Imber, “The Ottoman Dynastic Myth.” Turcica, xix (1987).
80 İbid, p7.
empires stand on Islam and were busy with fitting the Ottoman state into a classical administrative mould.81 Hence the importance of ‘ulema-families such as the Çandarlı’s within the Ottoman house. This was much to the dismay of dervishes like Asık Pasa-Zade who were used to the more “popular” heterodox Islam which included material rewards for the fight against the infidel. When discussing the Çandarlı I family’s influence as viziers within the Ottoman house, Asık Pasa-Zade writes the following:
“There were ‘ulema in the period of ‘Orhan and in the time of Murad gazi also. But they were not corrupt until the time of Halil Çandarlı I.”82
Asık Pasa-Zade’s criticism of certain personalities will be expanded on in the next chapter but the above example shows how the Ottomans did indeed change their self-perception and came to rely more and more on the orthodoxy provided by religious men of the pen. The increasing importance attached to the office of Sehül-Islam in this period and the growing use of Islamic fetva’s debating what was deemed Islamic or not were all part of this trend. Even if the Ottomans in the fifteenth century created their own historical myths to justify their rule, this does not mean that their early religious practices should be judged from the viewpoint of later orthodoxy. By citing examples of Ottoman-Byzantine co-operation through military and marriage alliances, mysticism and the influence of divine interpretation scholars have attempted to show that the early Ottomans were not orthodox gazis at all. In support of the above argument Lindner argues that if the Ottomans were real gazis then they would have at least tired to have foreed Christians into conversion. Also by pointing to the fact that the Ottomans may have practised human sacrifice and mummification in the
fourteenth century, be argues that the Ottomans were more crusaders for Shamanism than for Islam.83
Linder’s observations raise some interesting question regarding the nature of the early Ottoman state. Clearly as historians we should be able to distinguish between historical fact and literary convention. The chronicles of Asık Pasa-Zade and Kritoboulos cannot be assumed to be totally based on fact. Chroniclers sometimes created heroes out of place-names and subsequently fictitious events to legitimise their narrative. In Asık Pasa-Zade’s chronicle the name Tashakyazusu (“Testicle Plain”) provides the scene for the story of how Sultan Ala’eddin apparently castrated the defcated Mongols.84 But to judge the Ottomans religiosity on the basis of what twentieth century Ottomanists themselves deem to be “orthodox Islam” is difficult to comprehend and totally undermines the way in which the Ottoman state expanded. Total conversion of infidels to Islam would not have proved fruitful to the Ottomans where taxation was concerned. The maintenance of a strict political and social hierarchy within the state ensured that maximum taxes were extracted from the protected dhimmis (non-Muslims) as well as the Muslim subject class the re’aya, in order to support expensive military campaigns. Even in the early Ottoman period when the Ottoman rulers such as Orhan I
81 Lindner, op.cit p7 (1983).
82 Atsız op.cit p139 (1949).
83 Lindner, op.cit p6 (1983).
84 Imber, op.cit p133 (1994).
(r.1324-62) co-operated with Christians this did not necessarily mean that he abandoned his Muslim identify. It points to the Ottomans being pragmatic and fluid in their relations with some of their Christian neighbours in order to further their military ambitions. The same can be said of earlier Muslim dynasties as well. Usamah Ibn Munqidh who was an emir (amir) of Shayzar during the Frankish invasion of 1138AD clearly co-operated with the Franks both socially and politically. But his true feelings become clear when a Frankish Knight informed Usamah of his wish to take his son as a gestune of good will back to Europe. In his chronicle Usamah later writes what he could clearly not voice to the Franks personally.
“Thus there fell upon my ears words which would never come out of the head of a sensible man; for even if my son were to be taken captive, his captivity could not bring him a worse misfortune than carrying him into the lands of the Franks.”85
As for the Ottomans indulging in human sacrifice or practices reminiscent of Shamanism, it could be argued that it is not surprising that traces of their former religion still existed in the fourteenth century. More importantly, the chronicles were produced for the reason of providing legitimacy for the Ottoman empire as we have seen. But it cannot be said that chroniclers such as Asık Pasa-Zade who exemplified the dervish-gazi tradition throught themselves to be unorthodox Muslims because they narrated tales of divine intervention, mysticism and warfare against fellow Muslims without disgust. Asık Pasa-Zade does not treat differetently Ottoman
attacks against Christians to attacks against fellow Muslims. He narrates with delight the Ottoman attacks against the Muslim Karaman emirate and he himself participated in the military attack against Orhan the pretender who caused trouble in the reing of Murad II.86 Fifteenth century chronicles can certainly be utilised to chart the development of historical myth such as genealogy and the orthodox Islamic “gloss” sometimes added to events. But it is just as worthwhile accepting that the early Ottomans themselves through chroniclers such as Asık Pasa-Zade defined the concept of Holy War themselves to suit their own needs according to their social milieus at a given time. Also it makes more sense to accept that the religious behaviour and traditions of the Ottomans were a clear indication as to what they themselves deemeed important enough to have transmitted to chronicle form.
Our Chronicler’s Portrayal of Ottoman Policies.
85 Usamah, (translation Hitti) ‘An Arab-Syrine Gentlemen and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades.’ LB Tauris and Co Lit; London p161 (1987).
86 Atsız, op.cit p158 (1949).
This final chapter will deal with how Asık Pasa-Zade and Kritoboulos dealt with Ottoman policies. At a simple level the primary aim of the majority of Middle Eastern chroniclers was to eulogise their rulers. Hence the term ‘Court Chroniclers.’ But within the paradigm of chronicle writing chroniclers still managed to have their own voices heard and their own views put across as well as fulfilling the task of panegyric portrayal. In other words as we will be seen both Asık Pasa-Zade and Kritoboulos had their own political agendas to address through their chronicles. The existence of a chronicler’s “agenda” simple points to the fact that even if writing for a particular dynasty, chroniclers of the fifteenth century or before had their own academic or personal motives. For example, the Damascene biographer Ibn ‘Asakir portrayed David and other Syrian pre-Islamic prophets as pre-figurings of the prophet Muhammed because he wanted to demonstrate the continuity between the lives of the ancient prophets in Syria and Muhammed’s life in seventh century Arabia.87 Ultimately by stressing the continuity between the lives of ancient prophets and Muhammed’s life he could emphasise the importance of Muhammed and show him to be the ultimate prophet.
Both Asık Pasa-Zade and Kritoboulos have their own political agendas to address within their own chronicles and a comparison betweeen the two chroniclers brings to the surface some interesting differences. Kritoboulos’s panegyric portrayal of Mehemmed II takes priority within his chronicle but at the same time he is very critical of the policies and action of his own people the Byzantines. To Kritoboulos it
is their foolish squabbling and civil wars which allowed the Ottoman Turks to advance into Byzantine territory. Kritoboulos writes as follows:
“…I choose to record and to openly hold up to ridicule and disparagement our own internal evils, which in others views ought rather to be covered up as far as possible and by no means brought to the notice of the public.”88
Whereas Asık Pasa-Zade attempts to show that the early years under ‘Osman and Orhan constituted the golden age of Ottoman history and anything that came afterwards went downhill. His constant portrayals of ‘Osman as the ideal ruler who is always fair and just is part of the imagery of showing that the early years of the Ottoman state were its apogee. When ‘Osman took the province of Karaca-Hisar and bad set up the local administration, Asık Pasa-Zade narrates ‘Osman’s responce to someone who incurs charges on people who bring goods to the market:
“’Osman gazi said, ‘what is toll?’ The man said, ‘I take money on whatever comes to the market.’ ‘Osman said, ‘fellow, have you any claim on the people coming to this market that you should ask money from them?’ The man said
87 Qucted from Lincdey, ‘Professors, Propbets, and Politicians: ‘Ali Ibn’ Asakir’s ‘Ta’ rikh Madimnt Dimashq.’ Phd thesis, University of Winconsir; America p83 (1994).
88 Kritoboulos (translation Riggs) op.cit, p11 (1954).
‘My Khan, in all countries it is the traditional law and custom that Padishahs have taken it.’…’Osman became very angry and said…’Get out! Do not mention this to me again or you will suffer for it.”89
To Asık Pasa-Zade the policies of the Ottomans state are at their most decadent during the reign of Mehemmed II. Even Kritoboulos senses that some policies are not quite right but is not as critical of the Sultan as Asık Pasa-Zade is. Both chroniclers are typical of their genre in that they tend to criticise the men around the Sultan as opposed to levelling the criticism against Mehemmed II personally. After the Sultan had Notaras a member of the Byzantine nobility executed along with his son for no apparent reason, Kritoboulos writes the following:
“Persuaded by these arguments, or rather being dissuaded from his intention, the Sultan ordered the men to be removed. Loter on the Sultan discovered the underhandedness and wickedness of those who had persuaded him to put these men to death, and in disgust al their treachery he removed them from his sight.”90
Mehemmed II is presented rather strangely in contrast to his gallant warrior image as being nalve when it comes to such matters. Kritoboulos does not openly criticise the Sultan whatsoever. To an extent Asık Pasa-Zade too produces veiled criticism of the Sultan by harshly criticising the men around him. Although Asık Pasa-Zade writes not only as an observer of Ottoman internal policy but as an
Ottoman subject affected by them as well. Let us examine this more closely. Firstly our chronicler is very critical of Mehemmed II’s policy of charging. Muslim subjects who at the Sultans request came tol ive in İstanbul after the conquest, property rent. Asık Pasa-Zade sums up brilliantly what was probably public opinion towards the rent (makata’a) that was to be levied in order to boost the state revenue. Subsequently Mehemmed II was in the first instance persuaded to abandon this money-making policy by one of his officers.
“They said (the general public): ‘You forced us to leave our property and made us settle here. Did you bring us here that we should pay rent for these houses of the infidels? And some have abandoned their women and children and have fled.’ The Sultan had a kul (officer) named Kula Shahin who has served under the Sultan’s father and grandfather and who had been vizier. He said to the Sultan, ‘…Your father and grandfather conquered numerous territories but not in one of them did they impose rent; nor is it fitting that you should impose it.”91
89 Atsız, op.cit, p104 (1949).
90 Kritoboulos, (translation Riggs) op.cit pp84-85 (1954).
91 Atsız, op.cit p193 (1949). See also Inalcık, ‘The Poliey of Mehmed II Toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City,’ in The Ottoman Empire; Conquest, Organisation and Economy. Variorum Reprints; London (1978).
Although Asık Pasa-Zade is quite openly critical of the Sultan’s policies like Kritoboulos he chooses to portray the Sultan as a monarch who is easily influenced for beter or for worse by the men around him. It would have been unwise for our two chroniclers to be critical solely of the Sultan, as both Asık Pasa-Zade and Kritoboulos were contemporaries with Mehemmed II. Again Asık Pasa-Zade chooses to blame Rum Mehemmed Pasha for the reintroduction of the “rent” some years later. Our chronicler describes the Pasha as a vizier “whom the Sultan caused to be strangled like a dog,” after he had realised that the reintroduction of the rent would not help Istanbul to prosper. Asık Pasa-Zade goes on to warn the Sultan: “If the Sultan is capricious in the decress he makes then his territory will always suffer harm.”92 If we rend between the lines of Asık Pasa-Zade’s criticisms of Rum Pasha then we find that it was rather easy for a dervish like Asık Pasa-Zade to resent this political figure so much. It was Rum Pasha who was responsible for the abolition of annual gifts and bounties distributed by the palace to dervish figures.93 This of course affected Asık Pasa-Zade personally as he had been previously accustomed to receiving palace approved gifts.
It would be too simplistic to assume that Asık Pasa-Zade resented certain policies within the empire per se. In contrast I would argue that it was the way in which the whole empire was developing that disgruntled our chronicler. Mehemmed II did in reality introduce policies that alienated certain socilar groups mainly those associated with the dervish-gazi milieu. For example, Mehemmed II indulged in the confiscation of more than a thousand villages that belonged mostly to dervishes.94
What is important is that the above policies cannot be seen in isolation to the Sultan’s ambitions to run a very centralised, bureaucratic imperial empire. The increased reliance on non-Turkish slave-servants to run the administration and the creation of impersonal bureaucratic structures ensured that centralism within the Ottoman empire had reached its pack.95 To Asık Pasa-Zade the Ottomans no longer respected their gazi origins or their humble beginnings as pastoralists. Mehemmed II no longer stood up when martial music (beating of the drums) was played as his ancestors used to.96 Thus to Asık Pasa-Zade and others during this period things were not the way they used to be.
92 Inalcık, op.cit, p244 (1978).
93 İbid, p245.
94 Kafadar, op.cit, p97 (1995).
95 İbid, p153.
96 İbid, p152.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atsız-Osmanlı Tarihleri. Türkiye Yayın Evi; Istanbul (1949).
Fletcher-‘Turco-Mongolian Monarchic Tradition in the Ottoman Empire.’ Harvard Ukrainian Studies, (1979-80).
Giese-Die Altosmanische Chronik Des ‘Asıkpasazade. Otto Harrassowitz; Leipzig (1929).
Heywood- ‘Between Historical Myth and ‘Mythohistory’: the Limits of Ottoman History. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Vol.XII (1988).
Imber- ‘Canon and Apoerypha in Early Ottoman History.’ In Heywood and Imber (ed) Studies in Ottoman History. The ISIS Press; Istanbul (1994).
Imber- ‘The Legend of Osman Gazi.’ In Zachariadou (ed) The Ottoman Emirate (1300-1389). Rethymnon (1993).
Imber- ‘The Ottoman Dynastic Myth.’ Turcica, Vol.XII (1987).
Imber- The Ottoman Empire (1300-1481). The ISIS Press; Istanbul (1990).
Inalcık- An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Volune one (1300-1600). Cambridge University Press; Cambridge (1994).
Inalcık- The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Period (1300-1600). Phoenix Press; London, (1973).
Inalcık- ‘The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Under the ottomans.’ Turcica, vol. XXI-XXIII (1991).
Inalcık- ‘Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and his Time.’ Speculum, No.35 (1960).
Inalcık- ‘The Rise of Ottoman Historiography.’ In Lewis and Holt (ed) Historians of the Middle Fast. Oxford University Press; London, New York and Toronto, (1962).
Inalcık- The Ottoman Empire Conquest, Organisation and Economy. Variorum Reprints; London (1978).
Inalcık- ‘How to Read ‘Ashık Pasha-Zade’s History.’ In Heywond and Imber (ed) Studies in Ottoman History. The ISIS Press; Istanbul (1994).
Jennings- ‘Some Throughhts on the Gazi Thesis.’ Wiener Zeitsehrift Far Die Konde dos Motgenlandes. No.26 (1986).
Kafadar- Between Two Worlds. The Coastruction of the Ottoman State. University Of Californie Press; Berkeley and Los Angeles, Californie (1995).
Kritovoulos- (translation Riggs) History of Mehmed the Conqueror Priceton University Press; Princeton (1954).
Köprülü- (translation Leiser) The Origins of the Ottoman Empire. State University of New York Press; New York (1992).
Köprülü- ‘Aşık Paşa-Zade.’ Islam Ansiklopedesi. Istanbul Maarif Matbaası; Istanbul (1940).
Lindner- Nomads and Ottoman in Medieval Anatolia Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Bloominglon (1983).
Lindner- ‘Beginning Ottoman History.’ In Heywood and Imber (ed) Studies in Ottoman History. ISIS Press; Istanbul (1994).
Lindsay- Professors, Prophels and Politicians: ‘Ali Ibn’ Asakir’s “Ta’rikh Madinat Dimashq.” Phd Thesis; University of Winconsin (1994).
Menage- ‘On the Recensions of Uruj’s “History of the Ottomans.” Bulletin of The School of Oriental and African Studies, (1967).
Menage- ‘The Beginnings of Ottoman Historiography.’ In Lewis and Holt (ed) Historlans of the Middle Bast. Oxford University Press; London (1962).
Menage- ‘The Menaqib of Yakhshi Faqih.’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, (1963).
Moles- ‘Nationalism and Byzantine Greece.’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, Vol.10 (1969).
Nicol- Studies on Lute Byzantine History and Prosepography, Varionan Reprints; Loudon (1986).
Philippides- ‘The Fall of Coantlontinople: Bishop Leonard and the Greek Accotuts.’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, Vol.22 (1981).
Rosenthal- A History of Muslim Historingraphy. E.J. Brill; Leiden (1952).
Runcitnen- ‘Byzantine Historians and the Ottoman Turks.’ In Lewis and Holt (ed) Historians of the Middle East. Oxford University Press; London (1962).
Runciman- The Last Byzantine Renaissance. Carabridge University Press; Cambridge (1970).
Siley- ‘The Usage and Fenotion of Digressions in Ahmedi’s History of the Ottoman Dynasty.’ Turcica, Vol. XXV (1993).
Spandounes- (translation Nicol) On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge (1997).
Sphrantzes (translation Philippides) The Fall of the Byzantine Empire. The University of Massachusetts Press; Amherst (1980).
Tekin- XIV Yüzyılında Yazılmış Gazilik Tarikası “Gaziliğin Yolları” Adlı bir Eski Anadolu Türkçesi Meni.” Journal of Turkish Studies (1989).
Tosh- The Pursuit of History. Longman; London and New York (1991).
Treadgold- A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press; Stanford (1997).
Tursun bey (translation Inalcık and Murphey) The History of Mehmed the Conqueror. Bibliothees Islamica; Minneapolis and Chiesgo (1978).
Vryonis- ‘Byzantine Attitudes toward Islam during the Late Middle Ages.’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. Vol.12 (1971).
Wittek- The Rise of the Ottoman Empire. The Royal Asiatic Society; London (1963).
Zeehariadonu- ‘Religious Dialogue Between Byzantines and Turks During the Ottoman Expansion.’ In Lewis and Fiewohnen (ed) religions gesprache in Mittelslter (1992).